S'abonner

Assessing resident and attending error and adverse events in the emergency department - 16/03/22

Doi : 10.1016/j.ajem.2022.01.015 
Jamie L. Adler, MD , Kiersten Gurley, MD, Carlo L. Rosen, MD, Richard E. Wolfe, MD, Shamai A. Grossman, MD, MS
 Department of Emergency Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States of America 

Corresponding author at: Department of Emergency Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, West, Clinical Center 2, One Deaconess Road, Boston, MA 02215, United States of America.Department of Emergency MedicineBeth Israel Deaconess Medical CenterWest, Clinical Center 2, One Deaconess RoadBostonMA02215United States of America

Abstract

Background

There is a paucity of data looking at resident error or contrasting errors and adverse events among residents and attendings. This type of data could be vital in developing and enhancing educational curricula

Objectives

Using an integrated, readily accessible electronic error reporting system the objective of this study is to compare the frequency and types of error and adverse events attributed to emergency medicine residents with those attributed to emergency medicine attendings.

Methods

Individual events were classified into errors and/or adverse events, and were attributed to one of three groups—residents only, attendings only, or both (if the event had both resident and attending involvement). Error and adverse events were also classified into five different categories of events—systems, documentation, diagnostic, procedural and treatment. The proportion of error events were compared between the residents only and the attendings only group using a one-sample test of proportions. Categorical variables were compared using Fisher's exact test.

Results

Of a total of 115 observed events over the 11-month data collection period, 96 (83.4%) were errors. A majority of these errors, 40 (41.7%), were attributed to both residents and attendings, 20 (20.8%) were attributed to residents only, and 36 (37.5%) were attributed to attendings only. Of the 19 adverse events, 14 (73.7%) were attributed to both residents and attendings, and 5 (26.3%) adverse events were attributed to attendings only. No adverse events were attributed solely to residents (Table Table 1). Excluding events attributed to both residents and attendings, there was a significant difference between the proportion of errors attributed to attendings only (64.3%, CI: 50.6, 76.0), and residents only (35.7%, CI: 24.0, 49.0), p = 0.03. (Table Table 2). There was no significant difference between the residents only and the attendings only group in the distribution of errors and adverse events (Fisher's exact, p = 0.162). (Table Table 2). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in errors that did not result in adverse events and the rate of errors proceeding to adverse events (Fisher's exact, p = 0.15). (Table Table 3). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the distribution of the types of errors and adverse events (Fisher's exact, p = 0.09). Treatment related errors were the most common error types, for both the attending and the resident groups.

Conclusions

Resident error, somewhat expectedly, is most commonly related to treatment interventions, and rarely is due to an individual resident mistake. Resident error instead seems to reflect concomitant error on the part of the attending. Error, in general as well as adverse events, are more likely to be attributed to an attending alone rather than to a resident.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Keywords : Error, Adverse events, Resident, Attending, Emergency


Plan


© 2022  Elsevier Inc. Tous droits réservés.
Ajouter à ma bibliothèque Retirer de ma bibliothèque Imprimer
Export

    Export citations

  • Fichier

  • Contenu

Vol 54

P. 228-231 - avril 2022 Retour au numéro
Article précédent Article précédent
  • Racial equity in linkage to inpatient opioid use disorder treatment in patients that received emergency care
  • Jessica Faiz, Ed Bernstein, Julianne N. Dugas, Elissa M. Schechter-Perkins, Lauren Nentwich, Kerrie P. Nelson, Emily C. Cleveland Manchanda, Ludy Young, Joseph R. Pare
| Article suivant Article suivant
  • Prevalence and significance of incidental findings on computed tomography pulmonary angiograms: A retrospective cohort study
  • Ali Eskandari, Sabarish Narayanasamy, Caitlin Ward, Sarv Priya, Tanya Aggarwal, Jacob Elam, Prashant Nagpal

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.

Déjà abonné à cette revue ?

Mon compte


Plateformes Elsevier Masson

Déclaration CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM est déclaré à la CNIL, déclaration n° 1286925.

En application de la loi nº78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, vous disposez des droits d'opposition (art.26 de la loi), d'accès (art.34 à 38 de la loi), et de rectification (art.36 de la loi) des données vous concernant. Ainsi, vous pouvez exiger que soient rectifiées, complétées, clarifiées, mises à jour ou effacées les informations vous concernant qui sont inexactes, incomplètes, équivoques, périmées ou dont la collecte ou l'utilisation ou la conservation est interdite.
Les informations personnelles concernant les visiteurs de notre site, y compris leur identité, sont confidentielles.
Le responsable du site s'engage sur l'honneur à respecter les conditions légales de confidentialité applicables en France et à ne pas divulguer ces informations à des tiers.


Tout le contenu de ce site: Copyright © 2024 Elsevier, ses concédants de licence et ses contributeurs. Tout les droits sont réservés, y compris ceux relatifs à l'exploration de textes et de données, a la formation en IA et aux technologies similaires. Pour tout contenu en libre accès, les conditions de licence Creative Commons s'appliquent.