20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A standardized marking procedure for ENT operations to prevent wrong-site surgery: development, establishment and subsequent evaluation among patients and medical personnel

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          Wrong-site surgeries are rare but potentially serious clinical errors. Marking the surgical site is crucial to preventing errors, but is hindered in the ENT field by the presence of many internal organs. In addition, there is no standardized marking procedure.

          Methods

          Here, an ENT surgical-marking procedure was developed and introduced at a clinic. The procedure was evaluated through anonymized questionnaires. This study was conducted over a 6-month period by interviewing patients and, at the beginning and end of this period, doctors and other surgical staff.

          Results

          The internal organ-marking problem was solved by applying a fixed abbreviation for each procedure onto the shoulder in addition to marking the skin surface as close to the organ as possible. The procedure was described as practicable by 100% of the interviewees; 75% of the ENT physicians and 96.3% of the other surgical staff considered the procedure highly important for preventing site confusion, and 75% of the physicians had a consequently greater feeling of safety. Of the 248 patients surveyed, 96.0% considered the marking procedure useful, and 75.8% had a consequently greater feeling of safety. For 52.0%, the marking reduced their fear of the operation.

          Conclusions

          For the first time, a standardized procedure was developed to mark the site of ENT surgery directly, uniformly and safely on patients. The procedure was judged to be useful and practicable and was also deemed crucial for preventing site confusion. Patients felt safer and less fearful of the operation due to the marking.

          Related collections

          Most cited references21

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A Surgical Safety Checklist to Reduce Morbidity and Mortality in a Global Population

          New England Journal of Medicine, 360(5), 491-499
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Patterns of technical error among surgical malpractice claims: an analysis of strategies to prevent injury to surgical patients.

            To identify the most prevalent patterns of technical errors in surgery, and evaluate commonly recommended interventions in light of these patterns. The majority of surgical adverse events involve technical errors, but little is known about the nature and causes of these events. We examined characteristics of technical errors and common contributing factors among closed surgical malpractice claims. Surgeon reviewers analyzed 444 randomly sampled surgical malpractice claims from four liability insurers. Among 258 claims in which injuries due to error were detected, 52% (n = 133) involved technical errors. These technical errors were further analyzed with a structured review instrument designed by qualitative content analysis. Forty-nine percent of the technical errors caused permanent disability; an additional 16% resulted in death. Two-thirds (65%) of the technical errors were linked to manual error, 9% to errors in judgment, and 26% to both manual and judgment error. A minority of technical errors involved advanced procedures requiring special training ("index operations"; 16%), surgeons inexperienced with the task (14%), or poorly supervised residents (9%). The majority involved experienced surgeons (73%), and occurred in routine, rather than index, operations (84%). Patient-related complexities-including emergencies, difficult or unexpected anatomy, and previous surgery-contributed to 61% of technical errors, and technology or systems failures contributed to 21%. Most technical errors occur in routine operations with experienced surgeons, under conditions of increased patient complexity or systems failure. Commonly recommended interventions, including restricting high-complexity operations to experienced surgeons, additional training for inexperienced surgeons, and stricter supervision of trainees, are likely to address only a minority of technical errors. Surgical safety research should instead focus on improving decision-making and performance in routine operations for complex patients and circumstances.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Avoiding wrong site surgery: a systematic review.

              Systematic review. To report the incidence and causes of wrong site surgery and determine what preoperative measures are effective in preventing wrong site surgery. From 1995 to 2005, the Joint Commission (JC) sentinel event statistics database ranked wrong site surgery as the second most frequently reported event with 455 of 3548 sentinel events (12.8%). Although the event seems to be rare, the incidence of these complications has been difficult to measure and quantify. The implications for wrong site surgery go beyond the effects to the patient. Such an event has profound medical, legal, social, and emotional implications. A systematic review of the English language literature was undertaken for articles published between 1990 and December 2008. Electronic databases and reference lists of key articles were searched to identify the articles defining wrong site surgery and reporting wrong site events. Two independent reviewers assessed the level of evidence quality using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria and disagreements were resolved by consensus. The estimated rate of wrong site surgery varies widely ranging from 0.09 to 4.5 per 10,000 surgeries performed. There is no literature to substantiate the effectiveness of the current JC Universal Protocol in decreasing the rate of wrong site, wrong level surgery. Wrong site surgery may be preventable. We suggest that the North American Spine Society and JC checklists are insufficient on their own to minimize this complication. Therefore, in addition to these protocols, we recommend intraoperative imaging after exposure and marking of a fixed anatomic structure. This imaging should be compared with routine preoperative studies to determine the correct site for spine surgery.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                christian.rohrmeier@ukr.de
                Journal
                Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol
                Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol
                European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
                Springer Berlin Heidelberg (Berlin/Heidelberg )
                0937-4477
                1434-4726
                29 June 2022
                29 June 2022
                2022
                : 279
                : 11
                : 5423-5431
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.7727.5, ISNI 0000 0001 2190 5763, Faculty of Medicine, , University of Regensburg, ; 93042 Regensburg, Germany
                [2 ]ENT Medicinal Office, Bahnhofstr. 19, 94315 Straubing, Germany
                [3 ]GRID grid.416619.d, ISNI 0000 0004 0636 2627, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, , St. Elisabeth Hospital, ; St.-Elisabeth-Str. 23, 94315 Straubing, Germany
                [4 ]GRID grid.7727.5, ISNI 0000 0001 2190 5763, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, , University of Regensburg, ; 93042 Regensburg, Germany
                [5 ]GRID grid.7727.5, ISNI 0000 0001 2190 5763, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, , University of Regensburg, ; 93042 Regensburg, Germany
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3339-5382
                Article
                7448
                10.1007/s00405-022-07448-x
                9519680
                35767060
                bcaa2933-1bb7-489f-a7a8-8a1964a97570
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 21 March 2022
                : 12 May 2022
                Funding
                Funded by: Universitätsklinikum Regensburg (8921)
                Categories
                Miscellaneous
                Custom metadata
                © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2022

                Otolaryngology
                marking procedures,wrong-site surgery,wrong-side surgery,patient safety,checklist
                Otolaryngology
                marking procedures, wrong-site surgery, wrong-side surgery, patient safety, checklist

                Comments

                Comment on this article