Patient safety incidents during interhospital transport of patients: A prospective analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Interhospital transport of critically ill patients is at risk of complications. The objective of the study was to prospectively record patient safety incidents that occurred during interhospital transports and to determine their risk factors. METHODS: We prospectively collected data during a fifteen-month period in 2 hospitals. Patient and transport characteristics were collected using a specifically designed tool. Patient safety incidents were appraised for health-care associated harm, and categorized as technical, operational, and communication problems. RESULTS: Our study included 688 patients who were transferred to or from one of both hospitals by physician or nurse led transport, with complete records. A patient safety incident was reported in 16.7% of transports, health-care associated harm was noted in 3.9% of cases. In multivariate analysis, three factors remained significantly associated with an increased risk of healthcare-associated harm: operational incidents (odds ratio=144.93, 95% CI=37.55-767.50, P<0.001), communication incidents (odds ratio=11.05, 95% CI=3.02-52.99, P<0.001) and the Modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (M-SOFA) score (odds ratio=1.198, 95% CI=1.038-1.40, P=0.017). CONCLUSIONS: The observed rate of patient safety incidents during interhospital transfers is lower than previously reported in the literature. However, there is limited previous work done on this topic. Operational and communication incidents, and a higher M-SOFA score are significantly associated with increase odds of harmful incident. These findings call for stricter preparation of transfers, with clear and standardized communication.

The effect on quality of chest compressions and exhaustion of a compression--ventilation ratio of 30:2 versus 15:2 during cardiopulmonary resuscitation--a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Recent cardio pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) guidelines changed the compression:ventilation ratio in 30:2. OBJECTIVE: To compare the quality of chest compressions and exhaustion using the ratio 30:2 versus 15:2. METHODS: A prospective, randomised crossover design was used. Subjects were recruited from the H.-Hart hospital personnel and the University College Katho for nurses and bio-engineering. Each participant performed 5min of CPR using either the ratio 30:2 or 15:2, then after a 15min rest switched to the other ratio. The data were collected using a questionnaire and an adult resuscitation manikin. The outcomes included exhaustion as measured by a visual analogue scale (VAS) score, depth of chest compressions, rates of chest compressions, total number of chest compressions, number of correct chest compressions and incomplete release. Data were compared using the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test. The results are presented as medians and interquartile ranges (IQR). RESULTS: One hundred and thirty subjects completed the study. The exhaustion-score using the VAS was 5.9 (IQR 2.25) for the ratio 30:2 and 4.5 (IQR 2.88) for the ratio 15:2 (P<0.001). The compression depth was 40.5mm (IQR 15.75) for 30:2 and 41mm (IQR 15.5) for 15:2 (P=0.5). The compression rate was 118beats/min (IQR 29) for 30:2 and 115beats/min (IQR 32) for 15:2 (P=0.02). The total number of compressions/5min was 347 (IQR 79) for 30:2 and 244compressions/5min (IQR 72.5) for 15:2 (P<0.001). The number of correct compression/5min was 61.5 (IQR 211.75) for 30:2 and 55.5 (IQR 142.75) for 15:2 (P=0.001). The relative risk (RR) of incomplete release in 30:2 versus 15:2 was 1.087 (95% CI=0.633-1.867). CONCLUSIONS: Although the 30:2 ratio is rated to be more exhausting, the 30:2 technique delivers more chest compressions and the quality of chest compressions remains unchanged.