Lessons Learned: Wrong Intraocular Lens

Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. Electronic address: .
Ophthalmology (Impact Factor: 6.14). 06/2012; 119(10):2059-64. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.04.011
Source: PubMed


To report cases involving the placement of the wrong intraocular lens (IOL) at the time of cataract surgery where human error occurred.
Retrospective small case series, convenience sample.
Seven surgical cases.
Institutional review of errors committed and subsequent improvements to clinical protocols.
Lessons learned and changes in procedures adapted.
The pathways to a wrong IOL are many but largely reflect some combination of poor surgical team communication, transcription error, lack of preoperative clarity in surgical planning or failure to match the patient, and IOL calculation sheet with 2 unique identifiers.
Safety in surgery involving IOLs is enhanced both by strict procedures, such as an IOL-specific "time-out," and the fostering of a surgical team culture in which all members are encouraged to voice questions and concerns.
The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

13 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To investigate trends in the incidence of lens extraction over the past 20 years. Longitudinal population-based cohort study. Persons who participated in the Beaver Dam Eye Study. Eligible persons 43 to 84 years of age living in the city or township of Beaver Dam, Wisconsin, were recruited from 1987 through 1988. Participants were followed up every 5 years from 1993 through 1995, from 1998 through 2000, from 2003 through 2005, and from 2008 through 2010 after the baseline examination from 1988 through 1990. Examinations consisted of ocular examination with lens photography and grading; medical history; and measurements of blood pressure, height, and weight. Adjustments were made for age and gender. Values of risk variables were updated, and the incidence of lens extraction surgery was calculated in each 5-year interval. Incidence of lens extraction with regard to presence of clinically significant lens opacity and visual function. Age- and gender-adjusted incidence of lens extraction increased over the 4 intervals from 1.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3%-2.5%) in the interval between the first and second study examinations to 11.7% (95% CI, 9.9%-13.8%) in the most recent study interval. The increase in incidence of surgery was significantly higher at successive intervals in persons without clinically significant lens opacity at each preceding examination (interval 1, 0.8% [95% CI, 0.6%-1.1%]; interval 4, 9.4% [95% CI, 7.8%-11.2%]) compared with persons with at least 1 detectable type of opacity (interval 1, 9.2% [95% CI, 6.4%-13.2%]; interval 4, 16.5% [95% CI, 13.4%-20.0%]). Recency of examination was not attenuated by adjusting for additional risk factors. There was no evidence that the increased incidence in surgery was preceded by poorer visual acuity, near vision, or contrast sensitivity at the beginning of each interval. The incidence of lens extraction has increased over the past 20 years in persons older than 65 years. The relative increase of surgery is higher in those without any clinically significant lens opacity and in persons with visual acuity better than 20/40 at an examination as measured 5 years before observed incidence of lens extraction. The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.
    Ophthalmology 08/2013; 121(1). DOI:10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.06.006 · 6.14 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Hintergrund Klinisches Risikomanagement soll in systematischer Form Fehler oder Risiken der PatientInnenversorgung entdecken, analysieren, verhindern und somit die PatientInnensicherheit erhöhen. Checklisten zur Prävention von Verwechslungen bei Operationen haben in den letzten Jahren zunehmend an Bedeutung gewonnen. An der Augenabteilung des KH Hietzing, Wien wurde im Oktober 2011 das „Team Time Out“ implementiert. Hierbei werden unmittelbar vor Operationsbeginn die wichtigsten Daten (Operation, Seite, Implantate) nochmals systematisch abgefragt. Methode Um den Nutzen des „Team Time Out“ zu evaluieren und auch für die MitarbeiterInnen anschaulich darstellbar zu machen, wurden 6 Monate nach Einführung der Checklisten für den Zeitraum von 9 Monaten alle durch „Team Time Out“ entdeckten Fehler protokolliert und ausgewertet. Resultate Im angegebenen Zeitraum wurden insgesamt 4113 Operationen durchgeführt. In 13 Fällen gab es Verwechslungen der Operationsseite, in 16 Fällen bei der Auswahl der Intraokularlinse. 19-mal wurden Fehler bei den PatientInnendaten, wie falsches Geburtsdatum, falscher Name oder fehlende Dokumentation einer Allergie entdeckt. 6-mal gab es weitere Auffälligkeiten, wie z. B. Befunde eines anderen Patienten in der Krankengeschichte. Insgesamt zeigte sich nochmals eine deutliche Reduktion der Fehler im Verlauf der 9 Monate. Schlussfolgerung Die Einführung des „Team Time Out“ hat sich bewährt und erhöht mit geringem Aufwand die PatientInnensicherheit deutlich. Trotz mehrfacher Kontrollen der Unterlagen vor der Operation können einzelne Fehler bis unmittelbar vor den OP-Beginn weiter getragen werden und fallen erst beim „Team Time Out“ auf.
    Spektrum der Augenheilkunde 02/2014; 28(1):23-27. DOI:10.1007/s00717-013-0206-1 · 0.18 Impact Factor

  • Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 10/2014; 40(10):1744-6. DOI:10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.08.015 · 2.72 Impact Factor
Show more