• A Bartolomé Ruibal, J I Gómez-Arnau Díaz-Cañabate, J A Santa-Ursula Tolosa, J M Marzal Baró, A González Arévalo, S García Valle del Manzano, I Hidalgo Nuchera, D Arnal Velasco, and G Puebla Gil.
• Area de Anestesia, Reanimación y Cuidados Críticos, Fundación Hospital Alcorcón, Madrid. abartolome@fhalcorcon.es
• Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim. 2006 Oct 1;53(8):471-8.

ObjectivesTo ascertain the changes in anesthesia-related morbidity and mortality after application of a scheme for reporting critical incidents and to assess the effect of implementing preventive measures against the detected errors.Patients And MethodsWe defined a critical incident to be any situation in which the margin of safety for the patient was reduced or might have been reduced. We analyzed data from the period between January 1999 and December 2004.ResultsThe number of critical incidents was 547 (0.79% of 68627 anesthetic procedures). Human error was identified in 279 incidents (51%). The most frequent factors underlying errors were wrong diagnosis of the situation, communication problems, and failure to check equipment and drugs. The patient suffered no adverse effect in 81.8% of the incidents; 78.9% were considered preventable. Introducing an equipment checklist before anesthesia reduced the number of incidents from 90 events in 21809 cases in 31 months to 34 events out of 22064 cases in 29 months; chi2 test, P < 0.05; odds ratio (OR), 2.68; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.80-3.98). Labeling syringes reduced errors in the administration of medications from 45 errors in 21 809 cases in 31 months to 27 in 22064 cases in 29 months; chi2, P < 0.05; OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.04-2.72.ConclusionsCorrective measures were adopted as a result of the incident reporting scheme. Some of the measures led to a statistically significant reduction in equipment and drug administration errors.

10 keywords...

hide…