Using a Second Stakeholder-Driven Variance Reporting System Improves Pediatric Perioperative Safety

Despite recognizing the occurrence of variances, we noted a low rate of reporting with the established computer variance program. Therefore, we developed and introduced a simple, handwritten variance reporting system. The goal of this study was to compare our pediatric perioperative handwritten variance cards to our established computerized variance reporting system. METHODS: We developed a handwritten variance card program through a stakeholder-driven quality-improvement initiative. We collected variances from handwritten cards in 4 perioperative locations and also from the established computerized variance system. We analyzed the variances and categorized them into 6 safety domains and 5 variance categories. RESULTS: Over 6 consecutive years, 3,434 variances were reported (687 computerized and 2,747 handwritten). For safety domains, the computerized system was more likely to capture adverse events and near-misses (8.7% vs. 1.1%, P < 0.001; 23.5% vs. 8.6%, P < 0.001, respectively) while the handwritten system was more likely to identify the safety process and other non-safety issues (20.1% vs. 38.3%, P < 0.001). Both systems addressed policy/process issues most often, with 37.9% of the handwritten cards and 66.6% of the computerized variance reports. Of the handwritten cards with a patient identifier (n = 1,407), only 5.1% (n = 72) also had a computerized variance filed about the same event. Thus, staff reported >1,300 additional variances that were not identified with the computerized variance system alone. CONCLUSION: The handwritten, stakeholder-driven variance reporting system was essential to identify local and system issues that would not have been identified by the computerized variance reporting system alone.