[Incident reporting systems and patient safety in anesthesia]. / Sistemas de comunicación de incidentes y seguridad del paciente en anestesia.

Incident reporting schemes collect information on adverse events, errors, complications, or problems with the aim of analyzing their causes and suggesting changes to prevent recurrence. Such schemes are currently part of clinical safety programs in various countries. Although the ideal form for a reporting system is debated, an essential part of its success will be the establishment of a culture of safety within an organization. The underlying assumption is that even though errors are an inherent part of a process that relies on human beings, they are nearly always favored by a chain of system failures. Therefore, reporting is intended to stimulate a culture of learning rather than assigning blame. The main limitations of such schemes are under reporting, the use of different terms and concepts, the lack of resources for research and development, and the scarcity or lack of legislation to guarantee the proper use of information without legal consequences.

[Application of a critical incident reporting and analysis system in an anesthesiology department]. / Utilización de un sistema de comunicación y análisis de incidentes críticos en un servicio de anestesia.

OBJECTIVES: To 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 METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: The 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. CONCLUSIONS: Corrective 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.