• J H Tinker, D L Dull, R A Caplan, R J Ward, and F W Cheney.
• Department of Anesthesia, University of Iowa College of Medicine, Iowa City 52242.
• Anesthesiology. 1989 Oct 1; 71 (4): 541-6.

AbstractAnesthesiologist-reviewers examined 1,175 anesthetic-related closed malpractice claims from 17 professional liability insurance companies. The claims were filed between 1974 and 1988. The reviewers were asked to determine if the negative outcome was preventable by proper use of additional monitoring devices available at the time of the review even if not available at the time the incident occurred, and if so, which devices could have been preventative. In 1,097 cases sufficient information was available to make a judgment regarding preventability of the morbidity or mortality by application of additional monitoring devices. It was determined that 31.5% of the negative outcomes could have been prevented by application of additional monitors. Using the insurance industry's scale of 0 (no injury) to 9 (death), the median severity of injury for incidents deemed preventable was 9 compared with 5 for those deemed not preventable (P less than 0.01, scale detailed in text). The severity of injury scores were the same for preventable mishaps occurring during regional or general anesthesia, suggesting that additional monitoring devices may be equally efficacious in preventing serious negative outcomes during either regional or general anesthesia. The judgements or settlements of the incidents judged preventable by additional monitoring were 11 times more costly (P less than 0.01) than those mishaps not judged preventable. The monitors determined by the reviewers to be most useful in mishap prevention were pulse oximetry plus capnometry. Applied together, these two technologies were considered potentially preventative in 93% of the preventable mishaps.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

18 keywords...

hide…