Reporting of Perioperative Adverse Events by Pediatric Anesthesiologists at a Tertiary Children's Hospital: Targeted Interventions to Increase the Rate of Reporting.

BACKGROUND: Incident reporting systems (IRSs) are important patient safety tools for identifying risks and opportunities for improvement. A major IRS limitation is underreporting of incidents. Perioperative anesthesia IRSs have been established at multiple pediatric institutions and a national pediatric anesthesia IRS for perioperative serious adverse events (SAEs) is maintained by Wake Up Safe (WUS), a patient safety organization dedicated to pediatric anesthesia quality improvement. A confidential, electronic, perioperative IRS was instituted at our tertiary children's hospital, which is a WUS member. The primary study aim was to increase the rate of incident reporting by anesthesiologists at our institution through a series of interventions. The secondary aim was to characterize our reporting behavior relative to national practice by referencing SAE data from WUS. METHODS: Perioperative adverse events reported over a 71-month period (November 2010 to September 2016) were categorized and the monthly reporting rates determined. Effects of 6 interventions targeted to increase the reporting rate were analyzed using control charts. Intervention 5 involved interviewing pediatric anesthesiologists to ascertain incident reporting barriers and motivators. A key driver diagram was developed and used to guide an improvement initiative. Incidents that fulfilled WUS criteria for SAEs were identified and categorized. SAE reporting rates over a 27-month period for 12 WUS member institutions were determined. RESULTS: 2689 perioperative adverse events were noted in 1980 of 72,384 anesthetics. Mean monthly adverse event case rate was 273 (95% confidence interval, 250-297) per 10,000 anesthetics. A subgroup involving 54,469 cases had 529 SAEs in 440 anesthetics; a mean monthly SAE case rate of 80 (95% confidence interval, 69-91) per 10,000 anesthetics. Cardiac, respiratory, and airway events predominated. Relative to WUS peer members, our institution is a high-reporting outlier. The rate of incident reporting per 10,000 anesthetics was sustainably increased from 149 ± 35 to 387 ± 73 (mean ± SD) after implementing mandatory IRS data entry and Intervention 5 quality improvement initiative. Barriers to reporting included concern for punitive repercussions, feelings of incompetence, poor education about what constitutes an event, lack of feedback, and the perception that reporting had no value. These were addressed by IRS education, cultivation of a culture of safety where reporting is encouraged, reporter feedback, and better inclusion of anesthesiologists in patient safety work. CONCLUSIONS: Electronic mandatory IRS data entry and an initiative to understand and address reporting barriers and motivators were associated with sustained increases in the adverse event reporting rate. These strategies to minimize underreporting enhance IRS value for learning and may be generalizable.

Optimizing Professional Practice Evaluation to Enable a Nonpunitive Learning Health System Approach to Peer Review.

Healthcare organizations are focused on 2 different and sometimes conflicting tasks; (1) accelerate the improvement of clinical care delivery and (2) collect provider-specific data to determine the competency of providers. We describe creating a process to meet both of these aims while maintaining a culture that fosters improvement and teamwork. METHODS: We created a new process to sequester activities related to learning and improvement from those focused on individual provider performance. We describe this process, including data on the number and type of cases reviewed and survey results of the participant's perception of the new process. RESULTS: In the new model, professional practice evaluation committees evaluate events purely to identify system issues and human factors related to medical decision-making, resulting in actional improvements. There are separate and sequestered processes that evaluate concerns around an individual provider's clinical competence or behavior. During the first 5 years of this process, 207 of 217 activities (99.5%) related to system issues rather than issues concerning individual provider competence or behavior. Participants perceived the new process as focused on identifying system errors (4.3/5), nonpunitive (4.2/5), an improvement (4.0/5), and helped with engagement in our system and contributed to wellness (4.0/5). CONCLUSION: We believe this sequestered approach has enabled us to achieve both the oversight mandates to ensure provider competence while enabling a learning health systems approach to build the cultural aspects of trust and teamwork that are essential to driving continuous improvement in our system of care.