• K Bielka, I Kuchyn, M Frank, I Sirenko, A Yurovich, D Slipukha, I Lisnyy, S Soliaryk, and G Posternak.
• Bogomolets National Medical University, department of surgery, anesthesiology and intensive care of postgraduate education, Kyiv, Ukraine. ekateryna.belka@gmail.com.
• BMC Anesthesiol. 2023 Jun 14; 23 (1): 206206.

BackgroundCritical incident reporting and analysis is one of the key components of patient safety in anesthesiology. The aim of this study was to determine the frequency and characteristics of critical incidents during anesthesia, main causes and factors involved, influence on patient outcomes, prevalence of incident reporting and further analysis.MethodsA multicenter prospective audit was conducted at the clinical departments of the Bogomolets National Medical University during the period from 1 to 2021 to 1 December 2021. 13 hospitals from different Ukrainian regions took part in the study. Anesthesiologists voluntarily submitted critical incident reports into a Google form as they occurred during the working shifts, reporting the details of the incident, and the incident registration routine in their hospital. The study design was approved by the Bogomolets National Medical University (NMU) ethics committee, protocol #148, 07.09.2021.ResultsThe incidence of critical incidents was 9.35 cases per 1000 anesthetic procedures. Most common incidents were related to the respiratory system: difficult airway (26.8%), reintubation (6.4%), oxygen desaturation (13.8%); cardiovascular system: hypotension (14.9%), tachycardia (6.4%), bradycardia (11.7%), hypertension (5.3%), collapse (3.2%); massive hemorrhage (17%). Factors associated with critical incidents were elective surgery (OR 4.8 [3.1-7.5]), age from 45 to 75 years (OR 1.67 [1.1-2.5]), ASA II (OR 38 [13-106]}, III (OR 34 [12-98]) or IV (3.7 [1.2-11]) compared to ASA I; regional anesthesia (OR 0.67 95 CI 0.5-0.9) or general anesthesia (GA) and regional anesthesia combination (OR 0.55 95 CI 0.3-0.9] decreased the risk of incidents compared to GA alone. Procedural sedation was associated with increased risk of a critical incident, compared to GA (OR 0.55 95 CI 0.3-0.9). The incidents occurred most commonly during the maintenance phase (75/113, 40%, OR compared to extubation phase 20 95 CI 8-48) or the induction phases of anesthesia (70/118, 37%, OR compared to extubation phase 18 95 CI 7-43). Among common reasons that could lead to the incident, the physicians have identified: individual patient features (47%), surgical tactics (18%), anesthesia technique (16%) and human factor (12%). The most frequent failings contributing to the incident occurrence were: insufficient preoperative assessment (44%), incorrect interpretation of the patients' state (33%), faulty manipulation technique (14%), miscommunication with a surgical team (13%) and delay in emergency care (10%). Furthermore, 48% of cases, as judged by participating physicians, were preventable and the consequences of another 18% could be minimized. The consequences of the incidents were insignificant in over a half of the cases, but in 24.5% have led to prolonged hospital stay, in 16% patients required an urgent transfer to the ICU and 3% of patients died during their hospital stay. The majority of the critical incidents (84%) were reported through the hospital reporting system, using mostly paper forms (65%), oral reports (15%) and an electronic database (4%).ConclusionCritical incidents during anesthesia occur rather often, mainly during the induction or maintenance phases of anesthesia, and could lead to prolonged hospital stay, unplanned transfer to the ICU or death. Reporting and further analysis of the incident are crucial, so we should continue to develop the web-based reporting systems on both local and national levels.Study RegistrationNCT05435287, clinicaltrials.gov, 23/6/2022.© 2023. The Author(s).

15 keywords...

hide…