Incident reporting in dentistry: Clinical supervisor's awareness, practice and perceived barriers.

BACKGROUND: The significance of patient safety and risk management in dentistry has surfaced as dental settings bear delicate procedures carried out by teams utilising numerous devices and tools in complex environments. AIM AND OBJECTIVES: Our aim is to assess awareness, practice, attitude and perceived barriers of reporting incidents amongst dental clinical supervisors working at dental colleges in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The objectives are as follows: (i) Determine if correlations exist between socio-demographic data and supervisors' awareness, practice, attitude and perceived barriers. (ii) Identify most common perceived barriers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online questionnaire was sent to the 450 clinical supervisors working at five dental colleges of Riyadh. The collected data included items assessing the awareness, practice and attitude of reporting students' incidents along with the perceived barriers. RESULTS: A response rate of (60.1% n = 264 of 450) was established. The majority of the respondents (62.9% n = 166) were aware of the incident reporting policy. Yet, only (35.4% n = 93) of them had completed an incident reporting form before. Most of the participants (90.5% n = 239) agreed on the necessity of reporting student's incidents, but only (67.0% n = 177) agreed on the necessity of reporting well-handled incidents. The possible negative relationship with students was the most agreed on barrier to reporting. CONCLUSION: This study shows that certain demographics of supervisors had significant relationship with their awareness, attitude, perceived barriers and practice. Awareness of the policy and form was linked to the increase in supervisors' practice, although they tend to report verbally rather than in writing. The possible negative relationship with students was the most common perceived barrier.

Analysis of patient safety risk management call data during the COVID-19 pandemic.

On March 11, 2020, the novel coronavirus disease, COVID-19, was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO).1 The pandemic evolved rapidly, forcing providers to face previously unconsidered health care delivery scenarios. Medical and dental professionals sought guidance. This article presents an overview of the questions, concerns, and requests physicians and dentists shared with patient safety risk management consultants (PSRMs) at a large medical professional liability company. During the first 5 months of the pandemic, PSRMs handled more than 1200 calls related to COVID-19. Analysis of call data provides insight into front line provider concerns as the pandemic evolved.

Survey of accidental ingestion and aspiration at Tokyo Dental College Chiba Hospital.

The occurrence of accidental ingestion/aspiration and preventive measures were investigated at Tokyo Dental College Chiba Hospital. In addition, the characteristics of accidents at our hospital were analyzed by surveying the awareness of accidental ingestion/aspiration to utilize the data for prevention. Accidental ingestion accounted for about 30% of accidents that occurred at our hospital in fiscal 2008, but all ingested items were naturally excreted, and no accidental aspiration occurred. Accidental ingestion most frequently occurred when dental restorations were removed. Inlays and crowns were most frequently ingested, and dentists with 5 to less than 10 years of clinical experience tended to be involved in these accidents. According to the results of the questionnaire, removal of restorations was perceived as the treatment least likely to cause accidental ingestion/aspiration. Moreover, dentists who always took preventive measures against accidental ingestion/aspiration accounted for only 40% or less on average. To avoid accidental ingestion/aspiration, repeated courses and individual instruction for repeaters and the establishment of a surveillance system along with manuals to manage the violation should be emphasized.

Analysis of the adverse events reported to the office of the clinical director at a dental school in Bogotá, Colombia.

Dentistry is interested in identifying and controlling adverse events, understood as involuntary injuries to the patient during dental care. The aim of this study was to analyze the adverse events reported to the Office of the Clinical Director at the School of Dentistry at Pontificia Universidad Javeriana (Colombia) during 2011-2012. It was an observational, descriptive study that evaluated 227 dental clinical records of patients who filed a complaint with the Office of the Clinical Director. Of these, 43 were adverse events and were used as the basis for this study. Of the 16,060 patients who received care during 2011 - 2012, 0.26% (43) filed a complaint involving an adverse event, of which 97.7 % were considered preventable. Most of these (76.18%, n= 32) occurred during clinical management of treatments in different specialties, 9.5% (4) were the result of deficient external dental laboratory quality, and 14.32% (6) were due to failure in document management, soft tissue injury, misdiagnosis and swallowing foreign objects. Of the patients involved, 65.2% (28) received care from postgraduate students, with the highest number of cases in the Oral Rehabilitation speciality. The occurrence of adverse events during dental care, indicates the need for information about their origin in order to establish protection barriers and prevent their incidence, particularly in the educational area under the student dental clinic service model.

En odontología existe interés por identificar y controlar los eventos adversos, entendidos como las lesiones no voluntarias que ocurren durante la atención odontológica. El objetivo de este estudio fue analizar los eventos adversos reportados a Dirección de Clínicas de la Facultad de Odontología de la Pontificia Universidad Javeriana durante el periodo 2011-2012. Se realizó un estudio observacional descriptivo para el que se evaluaron 227 historias clínicas de pacientes que reportaron una queja a la Dirección de Clínicas, de las cuales en 43 se evidenció la presencia de eventos adversos, a partir de las cuales se registró la información analizada en este estudio. De los 16.060 pacientes atendidos durante el periodo 2011 y 2012, el 0,26% (43) formularon alguna queja que resultó en un evento adverso, de los cuales el 97,7 % se consideraron prevenibles. El mayor porcentaje 76,18 % (32) se presentó durante la gestión clínica de tratamientos en diferentes áreas. El 9,5 % (4), se debieron a fallas en la calidad del trabajo del laboratorio externo; el 14,32% (6) correspondió a eventos generados por fallas en la gestión documental, lesiones de tejidos blandos, fallas de diagnóstico y deglución de objetos extraños. El 65,2 % (28) de los pacientes fueron atendidos por estudiantes de posgrado, con el mayor número de casos en la especialidad de Rehabilitación Oral. La presentación de eventos adversos durante el proceso de atención en odontología, es indicador de la necesidad de conocer su origen para establecer barreras de protección y prevenir su incidencia, especialmente en el área formativa bajo el modelo de atención docencia servicio.

Analysis of Incident and Accident Reports and Risk Management in Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: A review of accident and incident reports. OBJECTIVE: To analyze prevalence, characteristics, and details of perioperative incidents and accidents in patients receiving spine surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In our institution, a clinical error that potentially results in an adverse event is usually submitted as an incident or accident report through a web database, to ensure anonymous and blame-free reporting. All reports are analyzed by a medical safety management group. These reports contain valuable data for management of medical safety, but there have been no studies evaluating such data for spine surgery. METHODS: A total of 320 incidents and accidents that occurred perioperatively in 172 of 415 spine surgeries were included in the study. Incidents were defined as events that were "problematic, but with no damage to the patient," and accidents as events "with damage to the patient." The details of these events were analyzed. RESULTS: There were 278 incidents in 137 surgeries and 42 accidents in 35 surgeries, giving prevalence of 33% (137/415) and 8% (35/415), respectively. The proportion of accidents among all events was significantly higher for doctors than non-doctors [68.0% (17/25) vs. 8.5% (25/295), P < 0.01] and in the operating room compared with outside the operating room [40.5% (15/37) vs. 9.5% (27/283), P < 0.01]. There was no significant difference in years of experience among personnel involved in all events. The major types of events were medication-related, line and tube problems, and falls and slips. Accidents also occurred because of a long-term prone position, with complications such as laryngeal edema, ulnar nerve palsy, and tooth damage. CONCLUSION: Surgery and procedures in the operating room always have a risk of complications. Therefore, a particular effort is needed to establish safe management of this environment and to provide advice on risk to the doctor and medical care team. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

A survey of percutaneous/mucocutaneous injury reporting in a public teaching hospital.

Our objective was to determine if healthcare workers were reporting all percutaneous and/or mucocutaneous injuries and to use such data to formulate appropriate interventions. The Infection Control Department distributed anonymous surveys of healthcare personnel between 1992 and 1995. The elicited information included the number of percutaneous and mucocutaneous injuries experienced and reported in the last five years and the reasons for not reporting every exposure when applicable. Five hundred and forty nine surveys were received, from physicians, dentists, registered nurses, licensed vocational nurses, nurses aides, and operating room technicians. Overall, of the 549 respondents, 45% (245) had no injuries, 30% (163) had been injured and had reported all injuries, and 26% (141) had not reported all injuries. Reasons for not reporting included sterile/clean needlestick (39%), little or no perception of risk to employee (26%), too busy (9%), and dissatisfaction with follow-up procedures (8%). Reasons stated for not reporting injuries indicate a need for continued education in the risk of acquiring blood-borne pathogens from such injuries. The results also illustrate the importance of targeting prevention efforts to specific groups, such as physicians, that would not be identified by routine reporting mechanisms.

Perianesthetic dental injuries: analysis of incident reports.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To conduct a retrospective analysis of incident reports concerning dental injury, the most common cause for litigation against anesthesiologists, to determine specific risk factors that will help in formulating a risk reduction strategy for this clinical problem. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review of a large professional liability insurer. INTERVENTIONS: Of 40 hospitals that report to the MRM Co. as part of the professional liability insurance, during the years 1992-1999, 18 hospitals reported dental injury. A Maxillofacial surgeon (GN) and an anesthesiologist (ES), using a structured form, reviewed the reports. Evaluation of the cost of injury was determined from the patient's claims or from an evaluation of rehabilitation plan constructed by the maxillofacial surgery consultants to the company. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: There were 203 incidents due to dental injury. The patients were most commonly in their 5(th) to 7(th) decade. Eighty six percent of the injured teeth were the upper incisors. Lower incisors were more likely to be injured during an urgent intubation, or due to airway manipulation other than intubation. (i.e., oral airway insertion) In only 38 (18.6%) cases was there a previous assessment of an expected difficult intubation. Dentition was judged to be pathological in 32% of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: In elective intubation, the teeth most likely to be injured are the upper incisors, in patients aged 50-70 years. In most cases dental injury is not associated with a pre-event prediction of difficult intubation.

Occupational exposures occurring among dental assistants in a UK dental school.

PURPOSE: The cross-infection risks for dentists have been well recognised, and much has been published regarding the incidence of occupational exposures to patient body fluids. Less has been reported regarding the risks to dental assistants. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incidence of occupational exposures to patient body fluids among dental assistants, to assess the rate of reporting of such incidents, and to evaluate the association of various factors with these exposures. METHOD: All 84 dental assistants working at Birmingham Dental Hospital were asked to complete a confidential questionnaire to provide retrospective information regarding the nature and incidence of any occupational exposures they had experienced. RESULTS: An overall response rate of 94% was achieved. Dental nurses experienced fewer occupational exposures than dental students at the same institution, and reported incidents more frequently. More injuries occurred after the treatment session. Handling local anaesthetic syringes was associated with more injuries, and percutaneous injuries predominated. Trainee nurses had experienced more occupational injuries in the preceding six months than their qualified colleagues. There was no significant association with any of the other factors evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: The general incidence of occupational exposures among the dental assistants in this survey was low in comparison to dental students at the same institution. A further reduction may be possible by increasing the training of unqualified nurses with particular regard to post-treatment handling of sharp dental instruments and equipment.

[Evaluation of 100 anesthetic incidents].

BACKGROUND: The anesthetic incident-reporting scheme in the department of anesthesia, Jichi Medical School Hospital, has been running for 3 years and 100 incidents have now been reported. METHODS: An 'anesthetic incident' was defined as any incident related to anesthesia which either caused harm, or if uncorrected might have caused harm, to a patient. RESULTS: There were 26 problems involving drugs, 18 airway and respiratory problems, 15 dental damages, 11 cardiovascular problems, 8 problems related epidural anesthesia, and 22 others. CONCLUSIONS: The scheme has successfully highlighted weaknesses of the department.

Healthcare workers' perceptions of occupational exposure to blood-borne viruses and reporting barriers: a questionnaire-based study.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at significant risk of exposure to blood-borne viruses (BBV). AIM: To investigate HCW perceptions concerning occupational exposures to BBV and possible barriers involved in reporting incidents. METHODS: A total of 120 HCWs based at the Dental Institute, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, completed an anonymous questionnaire as part of a multicentre study. FINDINGS: Eighty-six percent (99/115) of respondents worried about developing a BBV infection at work. Of those who feared hepatitis C virus (HCV) the most, 69% (31/45) also believed that HCV posed the greatest risk to their health, versus 53% (10/19) and 13% (5/40) with regard to hepatitis B virus (HBV) and HIV infection, respectively (P < 0.001). Of respondents with ≥21 years of health service experience, 75% (18/24) knew the risk of HIV transmission versus 13% (2/16) of respondents with <5 years of health service experience (P = 0.002). All (23/23) respondents with ≥21 years of service were aware of HIV PEP versus 20% (12/60) with <21 years of service. Ninety-two percent of respondents (104/113) agreed that it was important to report all body fluid exposure incidents but only 58% (28/48) had reported all their exposure incidents. Fifty-nine percent (60/102) agreed that an electronic reporting system would improve reporting of such incidents. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified a need to improve HCWs' knowledge of BBV infection risks and their management. Data gathered in this study will be used to inform the development of a web-based system for the surveillance of occupational exposures to BBV in the UK.

Underreporting of blood and body fluid exposures among health care students and trainees in the acute care setting: a 2007 survey.

BACKGROUND: It has been estimated that more than 8 million health care workers (HCWs) in the United States may be exposed to blood and body fluids via sharp and mucocutaneous exposures. METHODS: An anonymous questionnaire was distributed among 505 HCWs. The target sample population included all the medical students; nursing professionals; dental professionals; and residents in internal medicine, emergency medicine, surgery, and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Illinois Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, a metropolitan tertiary care and referral center for Northern Illinois and Northwest Indiana. The sample was limited by the number of HCWs who were available to take the survey. The number and the characteristics of occupational exposures and reporting practices were recorded and compiled. Subsequently, a review of the English literature was performed using PubMed to analyze reasons for underreporting. Secondary and tertiary articles were located based on findings from the initial searches. RESULTS: One hundred three of 455 (22.6%) HCWs reported a sharps exposure during their career, including their student years; thirty-four (33.0%) of these were not reported. One hundred five of 455 (23.1%) HCWs reported a mucocutaneous exposure during their career; 87 (82.9%) of these were not reported. The most common year of exposure was the intern year. The most common reason for not reporting was the belief that the exposure was not significant, followed by the combination of believing the exposure was not significant and being too busy. CONCLUSION: Underreporting of blood and body fluid exposures is common because of a belief that most exposures are not significant. More education of HCWs is needed to change this perspective.

Risk management in endodontics.

INTRODUCTION: Endodontic claims are the most frequently filed malpractice claims in dentistry. The aim of this study was to categorize and review errors and complications related to endodontic procedures that resulted in legal actions against the treating practitioner. METHODS: All dental malpractice complaints reported to the Medical Consultants International Company (MCI) in Israel between the years 1992-2008 were retrospectively analyzed according to a structured form. All complaints were categorized as either financial risk bearing (eg, justified) or financial non-risk bearing (eg, nonjustified). The treatment errors that were found in the files were categorized according to phases of treatment: preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative errors. RESULTS: A total of 720 complaints were analyzed including 520 complaints (72.2%) that were found to be justified and 200 complaints (27.8%) that were judged as not justified. Most of the treatment errors occurred during the intraoperative phase. In lower anterior teeth and in cases involving more than 1 tooth, significantly more errors were found during instrumentation and root canal filling (P < .05). There was a similar distribution of operator errors and of negative outcomes for teeth with elective endodontic treatment and teeth with endodontic treatment as a result of a pathologic process. CONCLUSIONS: The technical skills of the dental practitioners performing root canal treatments require improvement. All possible risks and complications should be considered and explained to the patient before treatment.

Secretary of State's POPUMET Inspectorate: the first six years.

The first six years work of the Secretary of State for Health's Inspectorate for regulation 4 of the Ionising Radiation (Protection of Persons Undergoing Medical Examination or Treatment) Regulations 1988 is described. The regulations are colloquially known by the acronym POPUMET, and implement European Directive 84/466 EURATOM in Great Britain. This laid down basic measures for the protection of persons undergoing medical examination or treatment involving ionising radiation. The POPUMET regulations are applicable to all health care settings, public or private sector, but exclude research. Regulation 4 is intended to prevent unnecessary or excessive medical exposure to radiation. Of 68 reported incidents, 54 (79%) were relevant to regulation 4, comprising 20 (37%) incidents in radiotherapy, 21 (39%) in radiology, 11 (20%) in nuclear medicine and 2 (4%) in dental radiology. Allowing for the denominator number of NHS departments in England, the greatest frequency of incidents were reported from radiotherapy departments, followed by nuclear medicine and then radiology departments. Of the 54 incidents investigated, 42 (78%) required a site visit; 39 (72%) resulted in advice from the Inspectorate; 13 (24%) required no action following investigation and 2 (4%) were still under investigation as at 31 May 1994. No enforcement notices were issued and there were no prosecutions.

Investigação de acidentes biológicos entre profissionais de saúde / Investigation of biological accidents among health care workers / Investigación de accidentes biológicos entre los trabajadores de la salud

Os objetivos deste trabalho foram identificar a principal categoria profissional exposta a risco biológico e os principais tipos de acidentes ocorridos entre trabalhadores da área de saúde, em Campos dos Goytacazes, RJ. A partir da análise das fichas denotificação de acidentes biológicos dos 183 profissionais acidentados entre janeiro de 2005 e setembro de 2005, observamos que a categoria profissional mais exposta foi a dos auxiliares/técnicos de enfermagem (54,1%), seguida pela dos acadêmicos de medicina e odontologia (10,4%). A ocorrência de acidentes com materiais perfurocortantes foi relacionada à manipulação frequente desses objetos e ao comportamento dos profissionais que utilizam práticas que oferecem riscos de acidentes com agulhas, tais como o descarte inadequado de objetos perfurocortantes.