Cargando…

Reporting of unintended events in an intensive care unit: comparison between staff and observer

BACKGROUND: In order to identify relevant targets for change, it is essential to know the reliability of incident staff reporting. The aim of this study is to compare the incidence and type of unintended events (UE) reported by facilitated Intensive Care Unit (ICU) staff with those recorded concurre...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Capuzzo, Maurizia, Nawfal, Imad, Campi, Matilde, Valpondi, Vanna, Verri, Marco, Alvisi, Raffaele
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2005
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1165974/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15921517
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-227X-5-3
_version_ 1782124417384448000
author Capuzzo, Maurizia
Nawfal, Imad
Campi, Matilde
Valpondi, Vanna
Verri, Marco
Alvisi, Raffaele
author_facet Capuzzo, Maurizia
Nawfal, Imad
Campi, Matilde
Valpondi, Vanna
Verri, Marco
Alvisi, Raffaele
author_sort Capuzzo, Maurizia
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In order to identify relevant targets for change, it is essential to know the reliability of incident staff reporting. The aim of this study is to compare the incidence and type of unintended events (UE) reported by facilitated Intensive Care Unit (ICU) staff with those recorded concurrently by an observer. METHODS: The study is a prospective data collection performed in two 4-bed multidisciplinary ICUs of a teaching hospital. The format of the UE reporting system was voluntary, facilitated and not necessarily anonymous, and used a structured form with a predetermined list of items. UEs were reported by ICU staff over a period of 4 weeks. The reporting incidence during the first fourteen days was compared with that during the second fourteen. During morning shifts in the second fourteen days, one observer in each ICU recorded any UE seen. The staff was not aware of the observers' study. The incidence of UEs reported by staff was compared with that recorded by the observers. RESULTS: The staff reported 36 UEs in the first fourteen days and 31 in the second.. The incidence of UE detection during morning shifts was significantly higher than during afternoon or night shifts (p < 0.001). Considering only working day morning shifts, the rate of UE reporting by the staff per 100 patient days was 26.9 (CI 95% 16.9–37.0) in the first fourteen day period and 20.3 (CI 95% 10.3–30.4) in the second. The rate of UE detection by the observers was 53.1 per 100 patient days (CI 95% 40.6–65.6), significantly higher (p < 0.001) than that reported concurrently by the staff. There was excellent agreement between staff and observers about the severity of the UEs recorded (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient 0.869). The observers recorded mainly UEs involving Airway/mechanical ventilation and Patient management, and the staff Catheter/Drain/Probe and Medication errors (p = 0.025). CONCLUSION: UE incidence is strongly underreported by staff in comparison with observers. Also the types of UEs reported are different. Invaluable information about incidents in ICU can be obtained in a few days by observer monitoring.
format Text
id pubmed-1165974
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2005
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-11659742005-06-30 Reporting of unintended events in an intensive care unit: comparison between staff and observer Capuzzo, Maurizia Nawfal, Imad Campi, Matilde Valpondi, Vanna Verri, Marco Alvisi, Raffaele BMC Emerg Med Research Article BACKGROUND: In order to identify relevant targets for change, it is essential to know the reliability of incident staff reporting. The aim of this study is to compare the incidence and type of unintended events (UE) reported by facilitated Intensive Care Unit (ICU) staff with those recorded concurrently by an observer. METHODS: The study is a prospective data collection performed in two 4-bed multidisciplinary ICUs of a teaching hospital. The format of the UE reporting system was voluntary, facilitated and not necessarily anonymous, and used a structured form with a predetermined list of items. UEs were reported by ICU staff over a period of 4 weeks. The reporting incidence during the first fourteen days was compared with that during the second fourteen. During morning shifts in the second fourteen days, one observer in each ICU recorded any UE seen. The staff was not aware of the observers' study. The incidence of UEs reported by staff was compared with that recorded by the observers. RESULTS: The staff reported 36 UEs in the first fourteen days and 31 in the second.. The incidence of UE detection during morning shifts was significantly higher than during afternoon or night shifts (p < 0.001). Considering only working day morning shifts, the rate of UE reporting by the staff per 100 patient days was 26.9 (CI 95% 16.9–37.0) in the first fourteen day period and 20.3 (CI 95% 10.3–30.4) in the second. The rate of UE detection by the observers was 53.1 per 100 patient days (CI 95% 40.6–65.6), significantly higher (p < 0.001) than that reported concurrently by the staff. There was excellent agreement between staff and observers about the severity of the UEs recorded (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient 0.869). The observers recorded mainly UEs involving Airway/mechanical ventilation and Patient management, and the staff Catheter/Drain/Probe and Medication errors (p = 0.025). CONCLUSION: UE incidence is strongly underreported by staff in comparison with observers. Also the types of UEs reported are different. Invaluable information about incidents in ICU can be obtained in a few days by observer monitoring. BioMed Central 2005-05-27 /pmc/articles/PMC1165974/ /pubmed/15921517 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-227X-5-3 Text en Copyright © 2005 Capuzzo et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Capuzzo, Maurizia
Nawfal, Imad
Campi, Matilde
Valpondi, Vanna
Verri, Marco
Alvisi, Raffaele
Reporting of unintended events in an intensive care unit: comparison between staff and observer
title Reporting of unintended events in an intensive care unit: comparison between staff and observer
title_full Reporting of unintended events in an intensive care unit: comparison between staff and observer
title_fullStr Reporting of unintended events in an intensive care unit: comparison between staff and observer
title_full_unstemmed Reporting of unintended events in an intensive care unit: comparison between staff and observer
title_short Reporting of unintended events in an intensive care unit: comparison between staff and observer
title_sort reporting of unintended events in an intensive care unit: comparison between staff and observer
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1165974/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15921517
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-227X-5-3
work_keys_str_mv AT capuzzomaurizia reportingofunintendedeventsinanintensivecareunitcomparisonbetweenstaffandobserver
AT nawfalimad reportingofunintendedeventsinanintensivecareunitcomparisonbetweenstaffandobserver
AT campimatilde reportingofunintendedeventsinanintensivecareunitcomparisonbetweenstaffandobserver
AT valpondivanna reportingofunintendedeventsinanintensivecareunitcomparisonbetweenstaffandobserver
AT verrimarco reportingofunintendedeventsinanintensivecareunitcomparisonbetweenstaffandobserver
AT alvisiraffaele reportingofunintendedeventsinanintensivecareunitcomparisonbetweenstaffandobserver