Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery
Volume 112, Issue 4 , Pages 314-319, May 2010

Prospective collection and analysis of error data in a neurosurgical clinic

  • Jan Boström

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author at: Klinik und Poliklinik für Neurochirurgie, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Str. 25, 53105 Bonn, Germany. Tel.: +49 0228 287 16521; fax: +49 0228 287 14758.
    • ,
  • Ahmad Yacoub
    • ,
  • Johannes Schramm

Department of Neurosurgery, University of Bonn Medical Center, Germany

Received 10 November 2008; received in revised form 26 December 2009; accepted 4 January 2010.

Abstract 

Objectives

It is still unknown how often surgical errors lead to clinical impact and contribute to complications for patients. Hence, reliable and detailed prospective collection and analysis of error data is considered essential and a valuable key to error prevention.

Patients and methods

In a mono center study, errors and complications were prospectively recorded concerning consecutive patients undergoing elective and emergency neurosurgical procedures. A broad error definition (deviation from an optimal course=DOC) was used to catch as much as possible errors. Each error was scored for type, severity, preventability, and consequence.

Results

More than 1100 consecutive operative cases were studied, 756 cases could be evaluated, among them 529 elective and 227 emergency cases. A total of 190 DOC (25%) were found. The most common DOC was primarily due to (a) equipment failure or missing equipment, then to (b) pre-operative mismanagement, and only to (c) non-optimal procedures. 26% DOC were classified as medical, 69% as non-medical, and 5% as combined. Of all deviations identified, 16% were considered relevant errors, with only 4% slightly impacting the clinical course of the patient. Hence, in less than 1% of all cases a clinically relevant medical error occurred. 19% of all DOC were deemed not preventable. Unexpectedly, the error rate in emergency cases was lower than in elective cases (14% vs. 30%). A propensity for error was discovered with regard to technically complex cranial procedures and patients with higher ASA scores. Without permanent supervision, the documented error rate was significantly lower.

Conclusion

We were able to identify typical reoccurring deviations and discovered several procedure- and patient-related characteristics. Medical errors with relevant clinical impact were rare. Unexpectedly, the error rate in emergency cases was lower than in elective cases. Prospective error documentation and analysis are valuable, but also time-consuming since permanent close supervision is required for maintaining documentation quality.

Abbreviations: DOC, deviation from an optimal course, ASA grade, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, CUSA, Cavitron Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator

Keywords: Error data, Neurosurgery, Prospective study

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0303-8467(10)00006-5

doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2010.01.001

Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery
Volume 112, Issue 4 , Pages 314-319, May 2010

Article Tools