TY - JOUR
T1 - High stakes and high risk
T2 - A focused qualitative review of hazards during cardiac surgery
AU - Martinez, Elizabeth A
AU - Thompson, David A.
AU - Errett, Nicole A.
AU - Kim, George R
AU - Bauer, Laura
AU - Lubomski, Lisa H.
AU - Gurses, Ayse P.
AU - Marsteller, Jill A.
AU - Mohit, Babak
AU - Goeschel, Christine A.
AU - Pronovost, Peter J
N1 - Funding Information:
Conflict of Interest: This author received research funding from the SCA Foundation and was partially supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality K01 grant #HS018762 .
Funding Information:
Conflict of Interest: This author received research funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Funding Information:
Conflict of Interest: This author worked for MHA Keystone Center for Quality and Patient Safety, consulted for the Society for Pediatric Anesthesia, and received research funding from the SCA Foundation.
Funding Information:
Conflict of Interest: This author received research funding from Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesia (SCA) Foundation.
PY - 2011/5
Y1 - 2011/5
N2 - Cardiac surgery is a high-risk procedure performed by a multidisciplinary team using complex tools and technologies. Efforts to improve cardiac surgery safety have been ongoing for more than a decade, yet the literature provides little guidance regarding best practices for identifying errors and improving patient safety. This focused review of the literature was undertaken as part of the FOCUS initiative (Flawless Operative Cardiovascular Unified Systems), a multifaceted effort supported by the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists Foundation to identify hazards and develop evidence-based protocols to improve cardiac surgery safety. Hazards were defined as anything that posed a potential or real risk to the patient, including errors, near misses, and adverse events. Of the 1438 articles identified for title review, 390 underwent full abstract screening, and 69 underwent full article review, which in turn yielded 55 meeting the inclusion criteria for this review. Two key themes emerged. First, studies were predominantly reactive (responding to an event or report) instead of proactive (using prospective designs such as self-assessments and external reviewers, etc.) and very few tested interventions. Second, minor events were predictive of major problems: multiple, often minor, deviations from normal procedures caused a cascade effect, resulting in major distractions that ultimately led to major events. This review fills an important gap in the literature on cardiac surgery safety, that of systematically identifying and categorizing known hazards according to their primary systemic contributor (or contributors). We conclude with recommendations for improving patient outcomes by building a culture of safety, promoting transparency, standardizing training, increasing teamwork, and monitoring performance. Finally, there is an urgent need for studies that evaluate interventions to mitigate the inherent risks of cardiac surgery.
AB - Cardiac surgery is a high-risk procedure performed by a multidisciplinary team using complex tools and technologies. Efforts to improve cardiac surgery safety have been ongoing for more than a decade, yet the literature provides little guidance regarding best practices for identifying errors and improving patient safety. This focused review of the literature was undertaken as part of the FOCUS initiative (Flawless Operative Cardiovascular Unified Systems), a multifaceted effort supported by the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists Foundation to identify hazards and develop evidence-based protocols to improve cardiac surgery safety. Hazards were defined as anything that posed a potential or real risk to the patient, including errors, near misses, and adverse events. Of the 1438 articles identified for title review, 390 underwent full abstract screening, and 69 underwent full article review, which in turn yielded 55 meeting the inclusion criteria for this review. Two key themes emerged. First, studies were predominantly reactive (responding to an event or report) instead of proactive (using prospective designs such as self-assessments and external reviewers, etc.) and very few tested interventions. Second, minor events were predictive of major problems: multiple, often minor, deviations from normal procedures caused a cascade effect, resulting in major distractions that ultimately led to major events. This review fills an important gap in the literature on cardiac surgery safety, that of systematically identifying and categorizing known hazards according to their primary systemic contributor (or contributors). We conclude with recommendations for improving patient outcomes by building a culture of safety, promoting transparency, standardizing training, increasing teamwork, and monitoring performance. Finally, there is an urgent need for studies that evaluate interventions to mitigate the inherent risks of cardiac surgery.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79955474996&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79955474996&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1213/ANE.0b013e31820bfe8e
DO - 10.1213/ANE.0b013e31820bfe8e
M3 - Review article
C2 - 21372272
AN - SCOPUS:79955474996
SN - 0003-2999
VL - 112
SP - 1061
EP - 1074
JO - Anesthesia and analgesia
JF - Anesthesia and analgesia
IS - 5
ER -