Article

Time of day effects on the incidence of anesthetic adverse events

Department of Anesthesiology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States
Quality and Safety in Health Care (Impact Factor: 2.16). 08/2006; 15(4):258-63. DOI: 10.1136/qshc.2005.017566
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We hypothesized that time of day of surgery would influence the incidence of anesthetic adverse events (AEs).
Clinical observations reported in a quality improvement database were categorized into different AEs that reflected (1) error, (2) harm, and (3) other AEs (error or harm could not be determined) and were analyzed for effects related to start hour of care.
As expected, there were differences in the rate of AEs depending on start hour of care. Compared with a reference start hour of 7 am, other AEs were more frequent for cases starting during the 3 pm and 4 pm hours (p < 0.0001). Post hoc inspection of data revealed that the predicted probability increased from a low of 1.0% at 9 am to a high of 4.2% at 4 pm. The two most common event types (pain management and postoperative nausea and vomiting) may be primary determinants of these effects.
Our results indicate that clinical outcomes may be different for patients anesthetized at the end of the work day compared with the beginning of the day. Although this may result from patient related factors, medical care delivery factors such as case load, fatigue, and care transitions may also be influencing the rate of anesthetic AEs for cases that start in the late afternoon.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Jonathan Mark, Jul 25, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
86 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To ascertain the rate, type, significance, trends and the potential risk factors associated with radiotherapy incidents in a large academic department. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data for all radiotherapy activities from July 2001 to January 2011 were reviewed from radiotherapy incident reporting forms. Patient and treatment data were obtained from the radiotherapy record and verification database (MOSAIQ) and the patient database (HOSPRO). Logistic regression analyses were performed to determine variables associated with radiotherapy incidents. RESULTS: In that time, 65,376 courses of radiotherapy were delivered with a reported incident rate of 2.64 per 100 courses. The rate of incidents per course increased (1.96 per 100 courses to 3.52 per 100 courses, p<0.001) whereas the proportion of reported incidents resulting in >5% deviation in dose (10.50 to 2.75%, p<0.001) had decreased after the introduction of an online electronic reporting system. The following variables were associated with an increased rate of incidents: afternoon treatment time, paediatric patients, males, inpatients, palliative plans, head-and-neck, skin, sarcoma and haematological malignancies. In general, complex plans were associated with higher incidence rates. CONCLUSION: Radiotherapy incidents were infrequent and most did not result in significant dose deviation. A number of risk factors were identified and these could be used to highlight high-risk cases in the future. Introduction of an online electronic reporting system resulted in a significant increase in the number of incidents being reported.
    Radiotherapy and Oncology 08/2014; 112(2). DOI:10.1016/j.radonc.2014.07.011 · 4.86 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There has been an increased awareness of and interest in patient safety and improved outcomes, as well as a growing body of evidence substantiating medical error as a leading cause of death and injury in the United States. According to The Joint Commission, US hospitals demonstrate improvements in health care quality and patient safety. Although this progress is encouraging, much room for improvement remains. High-reliability organizations, industries that deliver reliable performances in the face of complex working environments, can serve as models of safety for our health care system until plausible explanations for patient harm are better understood. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) procedures performed later in the day and on weekends/holidays may be associated with adverse events due to a variety of factors including operator fatigue, handoffs, reduced staffing, and limited resource availability. We sought to determine whether patients implanted with ICDs in the afternoon/evening and on weekends/holidays are at increased risk for adverse events. Methods We studied 148,004 first-time ICD recipients in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry-ICD Registry implanted between April 2010 and March 2012. Using hierarchical multivariable logistic regression adjusting for patient, implanting physician, and hospital characteristics, we examined the association between both ICD implant start time and day of week with any complication, a prolonged hospital stay, and mortality. Results Most ICD implants (52.6%; n = 77,853) were performed in the morning (6 AM-12 PM) and during the regular workweek (97.5%; n = 144,266). After multivariable adjustment, ICD recipients implanted in the afternoon (12 PM-5 PM)/evening (5 PM-6 AM) compared with the morning experienced a greater odds of any complication (odds ratio [OR] 1.08; 95% CI 1.01-1.15; P = .0168), hospital stay >1 day (OR 1.29; 95% CI 1.25-1.33; P < .0001) but not inhospital death (OR 1.06; 95% CI 0.88-1.27; P = .5322). Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator recipients implanted on weekend/holidays compared with the mid-workweek also experienced a significantly greater odds of hospital stay >1 day (OR 1.40; 95% CI 1.29-1.53; P < .0001), no statistically significant differences in total complications (OR 1.14; 95% CI 0.96-1.36; P = .1371), and a trend toward more inhospital death (OR 1.52; 95% CI 0.98-2.38; P = .0642). Conclusions In a large, real-world population, ICD recipients implanted in the afternoon/evening and on weekends/holidays more often experienced adverse events, particularly prolonged hospital stays.
    American Heart Journal 10/2014; 169(1). DOI:10.1016/j.ahj.2014.10.006 · 4.56 Impact Factor