Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T19:42:07.369Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A novel point-of-care information system reduces anaesthesiologists' errors while managing case scenarios

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2006

H. Berkenstadt ,
Y. Yusim ,
R. Katznelson ,
A. Ziv ,
D. Livingstone  and
A. Perel
H. Berkenstadt
Affiliation:
Tel Aviv University, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Tel Hashomer, Israel Tel Aviv University, M.S.R. – The Israel Center for Medical Simulation, Sheba Medical Center, Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Hashomer, Israel
Y. Yusim
Affiliation:
Tel Aviv University, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Tel Hashomer, Israel
R. Katznelson
Affiliation:
Tel Aviv University, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Tel Hashomer, Israel
A. Ziv
Affiliation:
Tel Aviv University, M.S.R. – The Israel Center for Medical Simulation, Sheba Medical Center, Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Hashomer, Israel
D. Livingstone
Affiliation:
Tel Aviv University, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Tel Hashomer, Israel
A. Perel
Affiliation:
Tel Aviv University, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Tel Hashomer, Israel
Get access

Extract

Summary

Background and objectives: The On-Line Electronic Help (OLEH) is a point-of-care information system for anaesthesia providers prepared by the European Society of Anaesthesiologists. In this preliminary study the effect of the OLEH availability on the incidence of knowledge-based errors during the management of case scenarios and participants' subjective evaluation of the OLEH were evaluated. Methods: After a short training session, 48 anaesthesiologists (24 junior residents, 12 senior residents and 12 board-certified) were presented randomly with six computer screen-based case scenarios with, and six without, the option of using the OLEH. Two reviewers evaluated the answers independently according to preconfigured guidelines. Results: The availability of the OLEH was associated with higher scores in 11 of the 12 scenarios, and with a decrease in the incidence of critical errors in 10 scenarios. Time to task completion was increased in one scenario only when the OLEH was used. The degree of professional experience was associated with better scores in five of the scenarios and with a reduced occurrence of critical errors in three scenarios. Forty-two out of 48 participants stated that finding information in the OLEH software was easy and that the system was helpful in managing the scenarios. Conclusions: This preliminary study demonstrates the potential value of the OLEH in decreasing the number of knowledge-based errors made by anaesthesiologists. According to the encouraging results, the OLEH system is currently under evaluation using full-scale simulation scenarios in an operating room environment.

Keywords

MEDICAL ERRORS, prevention, controlOPERATING ROOM INFORMATION SYSTEMSANAESTHESIA GENERALEDUCATION, anaesthesiologists
Type
Original Article
Information
European Journal of Anaesthesiology , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , March 2006 , pp. 239 - 250
Copyright
© 2006 European Society of Anaesthesiology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Tversky A, Kahneman D. Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. In: Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A, eds. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982: 163–178.
Miller G. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol Rev 1956; 63: 81–97.Google Scholar
Morris AH. Developing and implementing computerized protocols for standardization of clinical decisions. Ann Int Med 2000; 132: 373–383.Google Scholar
Covell DG, Uman GC, Manning PR. Information needs in office practice: are they being met? Ann Int Med 1985; 103: 596–599.Google Scholar
Ely JW, Osheroff JA, Ebell MH et al. Analysis of questions asked by family doctors regarding patient care. Br Med J 1999; 319: 358–361.Google Scholar
Barrie AR, Ward AM. Questioning behaviour in general practice: a pragmatic study. Br Med J 1997; 315: 1512–1515.Google Scholar
Ely JW, Burch RJ, Vinson DC. The information needs of family physicians: case-specific clinical questions. J Fam Pract 1992; 35: 265–269.Google Scholar
Gorman PN. Information needs of physicians. J Am Soc Inform Sci 1995; 46: 729–738.Google Scholar
McGowan JJ, Richwine M. Electronic information access in support of clinical decision making: a comparative study of the impact on rural health care outcomes. Proc AMIA Symp 2000: 565–569.Google Scholar
Johnston ME, Langton KB, Haynes RB, Mathieu A. Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on clinician performance and patient outcome. A critical appraisal of research. Ann Int Med 1994; 120: 135–142.Google Scholar
Perel A, Berkenstadt H, Ziv A, Katznelson R, Aitkenhead A. Anaesthesiologists' views on the need for point of care information system in the operating room a survey of the European Society of Anaesthesiologists. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2004; 21: 898–901.Google Scholar
Ely JW, Osheroff JA, Ebell MH et al. Obstacles to answering doctors' questions about patient care with evidence: qualitative study. Br Med J 2002; 324: 710.Google Scholar
D'Alessandro DM, D'Alessandro MP, Galvin JR, Kash JB, Wakefield DS, Erkonen WE. Barriers to rural physician use of a digital health sciences library. Bull Med Libr Assoc 1998; 86: 583–593.Google Scholar
Forrest FC, Taylor MA, Postlethwaite K, Aspinall R. Use of a high-fidelity simulator to develop testing of the technical performance of novice anaesthetists. Br J Anaesth 2002; 88: 338–344.Google Scholar
Gravenstein JS. How does human error affect safety in anesthesia? Surg Oncol Clin N Am 2000; 9: 81–95.Google Scholar
Khan FA, Hoda MQ. A prospective survey of intra-operative critical incidents in a teaching hospital in a developing country. Anaesthesia 2001; 56: 177–182.Google Scholar
DeAnda A, Gaba DM. Unplanned incidents during comprehensive anesthesia simulation Anesth Analg 1990; 71: 77–82.Google Scholar
Yamamoto Y, Ikeda K, Nakajima Y. The statistical analysis of quality improvement system at Hamamatsu University School of Medicine for 5 years. In: Ikeda K, Doi M, Kazema T, eds. State-of-the-Art Technology in Anesthesia and Intensive Care. Elsevier, 1998.
Barrie AR, Ward AM. Questioning behaviour in general practice: a pragmatic study. Br Med J 1997; 315: 1512–1515.Google Scholar
Chambliss ML, Conley J. Answering clinical questions. J Fam Pract 1996; 43: 140–144.Google Scholar
Kurreck MM, Devitt JH, Cohen M. Cardiac arrest in the OR: how are our ACLS skills? Can J Anaesth 1998; 45: 130–132.Google Scholar
Porayko LD, Butler R. Perioperative resuscitation knowledge base. Can J Anaesth 1999; 46: 529–535.Google Scholar
Ali J, Adam R, Pierre I, Bedaysie H, Josa D, Winn J. Comparison of performance 2 years after the old and new (interactive) ATLS course. J Surg Res 2001; 97: 71–75.Google Scholar
Su E, Schmidt TA, Mann NC, Zechnich AD. A randomized controlled trial to assess decay in acquired knowledge among paramedics completing a pediatric resuscitation course. Acad Emerg Med 2000; 7: 779–786.Google Scholar
Schwid HA, O'Donnell D. Anesthesiologists' management of simulated critical incidents. Anesthesiology 1992; 76: 495–501.Google Scholar
Gaba DM, DeAnda A. The response of anesthesia trainees to simulated critical incidents. Anesth Analg 1989; 68: 444–451.Google Scholar
DeAnda A, Gaba DM. Role of experience in the response to simulated critical incidents. Anesth Analg 1991; 72: 308–315.Google Scholar
Smith AF, Goodwin D, Mort M, Pope C. Expertise in practice: an ethnographic study exploring acquisition and use of knowledge in anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth 2003; 91: 319–328.Google Scholar
Smith AF, Mort M, Goodwin D, Pope C. Making monitoring ‘work’: human–machine interaction and patient safety in anaesthesia. Anaesthesia 2003; 58: 1070–1075.Google Scholar