Abstract
Purpose
To determine why British Columbia’s anesthesiologists have not actively participated in a provincial Critical Incident Reporting Service by submitting reports of critical incidents experienced in their practice.
Methods
An email and postal mail survey of BC anesthesiologists was undertaken, proposing a variety of reasons why critical incidents may not be reported to the Service.
Results
207 responses were received from 368 specialist and general practitioner anesthesiologists. Respondents indicated general satisfaction with the overall concept of having an incident reporting service, and with the design of the multi-page reporting form. The greatest perceived problems to reporting incidents were related to aspects of workload, fear of litigation or a record of problems, and difficulties with the terminology of incident and error reporting. There are implications to the establishment of broader based programs in Canada.
Conclusion
A number of factors are responsible for under reporting of critical events. Further efforts to encourage reporting are required.
Résumé
Objectif
Dèterminer pourquoi les anesthèsiologistes de la Colombie-Britannique n’ont pas activement participè au Service provincial de notification des incidents critiques en soumettant des rapports ďincidents vècus dans leur pratique.
Mèthode
Une enquête a ètè envoyèe par courrier postal et èlectronique aux anesthèsiologistes de la CB et proposait diverses raisons pour expliquer pourquoi les incidents critiques n’ètaient pas rapportès au Service.
Rèsultats
Parmi les 368 anesthèsiologistes spècialistes et gènèralistes sondès, 207 ont rèpondu. Ils ont indiquè une satisfaction gènèrale quant au concept global de service de notification ďincident et au formulaire multipage utilisè. Les plus grands problémes perçus face à la notification des incidents ètaient reliès à la charge de travail, à la peur de litige ou de dossier de problémes et aux difficultès avec la terminologie de notification ďincident ou ďerreur. Il y a des implications à ľètablissement de programmes largement applicables au Canada.
Conclusion
Un certain nombre de facteurs sont responsables du peu de notification des incidents critiques. Il faut des efforts supplèmentaires pour encourager la notification.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Webb RK, Currie M, Morgan CA, et al. The Australian Incident Monitoring Study: an analysis of 2000 incident reports. Anaesth Intensive Care 1993; 21: 520–8.
Statutes and Regulations of British Columbia Evidence Act [RSBC 1996 Chapt 124]. Available from URL; http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/E/96124_01.h tm.
Dovey SM, Phillips RL. What should we report to medical error reporting systems? Qual Saf Health Care 2004; 13: 322–3.
Davies JM, Hèbert P, Hoffman C. The Canadian Patient Safety Dictionary. Ottawa: Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada; 2003. Available from URL; http://rcpsc.medical.org/ publications/PatientSafetyDictionary_e.pdf (accessed Nov 12, 2004).
Runciman WB. Lessons from the Australian Patient Safety Foundation: setting up a national patient safety surveillance system-is this the right model? Qual Saf Health Care 2002; 11: 246–51.
Lawton R, Parker D. Barriers to incident reporting in a healthcare system. Qual Saf Health Care 2002; 11: 15–8.
Sanborn KV, Castro J, Kuroda M, Thys DM. Detection of intraoperative incidents by electronic scanning of computerized anesthesia records: comparison with voluntary reporting. Anesthesiology 1996; 85: 977–87.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Merchant, R.N., Gully, P.M. A survey of British Columbia anesthesiologists on a provincial critical incident reporting program. Can J Anesth 52, 680–684 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03016553
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03016553