Background: Areas of activity with many intersections pose an increased risk for errors and critical incidents. Therefore, procedures for acute pain therapy are potentially associated with an increased risk for adverse patient outcomes.
Objective: The aim was to identify and grade the risk of critical incidents in the context of acute pain management.
Material and methods: The register of the nationwide reporting system critical incident reporting system of the Professional Association of German Anesthesiologists, the German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine and the Medical Center for Quality in Medicine (CIRSmedical Anesthesiology) was screened for incidents concerning pain management. Out of 5365 cases reported nationwide up to 24 March 2020, 508 reports with the selection criterion "pain" could be identified and reviewed and 281 reports (55%) were included in a systematic analysis.
Results: Of the 281 reports most came from anesthesiology departments (94%; 3% from surgery departments and 3% from other departments). The reported cases occurred most frequently on normal wards but a relevant proportion of the reports concerned intermediate and intensive care units or areas covered by a pain service (PS). Based on the description of the incident in the report, an involvement of the PS could be assumed for 42% of the cases. In terms of time, most of the events could be assigned to normal working hours (90%) and working days (84%; weekends 16%). The analyzed reports related to parenteral administration of analgesics (40%) and central (40%) or peripheral regional anesthesia procedures (23%) and 13% of the reports related to patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA; multiple answers possible). Most of the events were caused by technical errors, communication deficits and deviations from routine protocols. A relevant number of the cases were based on mix-ups in the administration route, the dosage, or the active agent. About one third of the sources of error were of an organizational nature, 59% of the cases posed a possible vital risk and in 16% of cases patients had vital complications. The risk grading by risk matrix resulted in an extremely high risk in 7%, a high risk in 62%, a moderate risk in 25% and a low risk in 6% of the cases. Comparing risk assessment of events with involvement of different analgesic methods, multiple medication, combination of analgesic methods or involvement of PS showed no significant differences. Likewise, no differences could be identified between the risk assessments of events at different superordinate cause levels. If more than one overriding cause of error had an impact, initially no higher risk profile was found.
Conclusion: Incidents in the context of acute pain management can pose high risks for patients. Incidents or near-incidents are mostly related to mistakes and lack of skills of the staff, often due to time pressure and workload as well as to inadequate organization.
Zusammenfassung: HINTERGRUND: Tätigkeitsgebiete mit vielen Schnittstellen, wie die Akutschmerztherapie, gelten per se als Bereiche, in denen ein erhöhtes Risiko für Fehler und Zwischenfälle besteht.
Ziel der arbeit: Ziele waren die Risikoidentifikation und Graduierung des Risikos von gemeldeten Zwischenfällen im Kontext der Akutschmerztherapie.
Material und methoden: Aus 5365 Fällen des bundesweiten Meldesystems CIRSmedical Anästhesiologie wurden 508 Berichte mit dem Selektionskriterium „Schmerz“ identifiziert und 281 Berichte (55 %) analysiert und anhand einer Risikomatrix graduiert.
Ergebnisse: Diese eingeschlossenen Fälle standen im Kontext parenteraler Analgetikaapplikationen (40 %) und rückenmarknaher (40 %) bzw. peripherer Regionalanästhesieverfahren (23 %) sowie der patientenkontrollierten Analgesie in 13 % der Meldungen (Mehrfachnennung möglich). Die meisten Ereignisse waren anhand der Schilderungen auf fachliche Fehler, Kommunikationsdefizite und ein Abweichen von der Routine zurückzuführen. Sie basierten meist auf Zugangs‑, Dosis- oder Wirkstoffverwechslungen. Etwa ein Drittel der Fehlerquellen war organisatorischer Art. Ein mögliches vitales Risiko war anhand der Berichte in 59 % der Fälle anzunehmen; 16 % der Fälle gingen mit tatsächlichen vitalen Komplikationen einher. Die Risikograduierung ergab zusammengefasst in Risikoklassen in 7 % ein „extrem hohes“, in 62 % ein „hohes“, in 25 % ein „moderates“ und in 6 % ein „niedriges“ Risiko.
Diskussion: Insgesamt stellte sich ein relevantes Risikopotenzial für die Patienten dar. Gerade Zwischenfälle mit menschlichen Fehlern, Abweichen von der Routine und organisatorischen Aspekten gehen mit hohem Risiko einher.
Keywords: Critical incidents; Opioids; Pain service; Patient controlled analgesia; Peridural analgesia.
© 2021. The Author(s).