An objective analysis of process errors in trauma resuscitations

John R. Clarke, Beverly Spejewski, Abigail S. Gertner, Bonnie L. Webber, Catherine Z. Hayward, Thomas A. Santora, David K. Wagner, Christopher C. Baker, Howard R. Champion, Timothy Fabian, Frank R. Lewis, Ernest E. Moore, John A. Weigelt, A. Brent Eastman, Cynthia Blank-Reid

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

43 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: A computer-based system to apply trauma resuscitation protocols to patients with penetrating thoracoabdominal trauma was previously validated for 97 consecutive patients at a Level 1 trauma center by a panel of the trauma attendings and further refined by a panel of national trauma experts. The purpose of this article is to describe how this system is now used to objectively critique the actual care given to those patients for process errors in reasoning, independent of outcome. Methods: A chronological narrative of the care of each patient was presented to the computer program. The actual care was compared with the validated computer protocols at each decision point and differences were classified by a predetermined scoring system from 0 to 100, based on the potential impact on outcome, as critical/noncritical/no errors of commission, omission, or procedure selection. Results: Errors in reasoning occurred in 100% of the 97 cases studied, averaging 11.9/case. Errors of omission were more prevalent than errors of commission (2.4 errors/case vs 1.2) and were of greater severity (19.4/error vs 5.1). The largest number of errors involved the failure to record, and perhaps observe, bedside information relevant to the reasoning process, an average of 7.4 missing items/patient. Only 2 of the 10 adverse outcomes were judged to be potentially related to errors of reasoning. Conclusions: Process errors in reasoning were ubiquitous, occurring in every case, although they were infrequently judged to be potentially related to an adverse outcome. Errors of omission were assessed to be more severe. The most common error was failure to consider, or document, available relevant information in the selection of appropriate care.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1303-1310
Number of pages8
JournalAcademic Emergency Medicine
Volume7
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2000

Fingerprint

Resuscitation
Wounds and Injuries
Trauma Centers
Computer Systems
Patient Care
Software

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Emergency Medicine

Cite this

Clarke, J. R., Spejewski, B., Gertner, A. S., Webber, B. L., Hayward, C. Z., Santora, T. A., ... Blank-Reid, C. (2000). An objective analysis of process errors in trauma resuscitations. Academic Emergency Medicine, 7(11), 1303-1310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2000.tb00480.x

An objective analysis of process errors in trauma resuscitations. / Clarke, John R.; Spejewski, Beverly; Gertner, Abigail S.; Webber, Bonnie L.; Hayward, Catherine Z.; Santora, Thomas A.; Wagner, David K.; Baker, Christopher C.; Champion, Howard R.; Fabian, Timothy; Lewis, Frank R.; Moore, Ernest E.; Weigelt, John A.; Eastman, A. Brent; Blank-Reid, Cynthia.

In: Academic Emergency Medicine, Vol. 7, No. 11, 01.01.2000, p. 1303-1310.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Clarke, JR, Spejewski, B, Gertner, AS, Webber, BL, Hayward, CZ, Santora, TA, Wagner, DK, Baker, CC, Champion, HR, Fabian, T, Lewis, FR, Moore, EE, Weigelt, JA, Eastman, AB & Blank-Reid, C 2000, 'An objective analysis of process errors in trauma resuscitations', Academic Emergency Medicine, vol. 7, no. 11, pp. 1303-1310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2000.tb00480.x
Clarke JR, Spejewski B, Gertner AS, Webber BL, Hayward CZ, Santora TA et al. An objective analysis of process errors in trauma resuscitations. Academic Emergency Medicine. 2000 Jan 1;7(11):1303-1310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2000.tb00480.x
Clarke, John R. ; Spejewski, Beverly ; Gertner, Abigail S. ; Webber, Bonnie L. ; Hayward, Catherine Z. ; Santora, Thomas A. ; Wagner, David K. ; Baker, Christopher C. ; Champion, Howard R. ; Fabian, Timothy ; Lewis, Frank R. ; Moore, Ernest E. ; Weigelt, John A. ; Eastman, A. Brent ; Blank-Reid, Cynthia. / An objective analysis of process errors in trauma resuscitations. In: Academic Emergency Medicine. 2000 ; Vol. 7, No. 11. pp. 1303-1310.
@article{c655a5b773884ed88c9d31e711211f65,
title = "An objective analysis of process errors in trauma resuscitations",
abstract = "Objective: A computer-based system to apply trauma resuscitation protocols to patients with penetrating thoracoabdominal trauma was previously validated for 97 consecutive patients at a Level 1 trauma center by a panel of the trauma attendings and further refined by a panel of national trauma experts. The purpose of this article is to describe how this system is now used to objectively critique the actual care given to those patients for process errors in reasoning, independent of outcome. Methods: A chronological narrative of the care of each patient was presented to the computer program. The actual care was compared with the validated computer protocols at each decision point and differences were classified by a predetermined scoring system from 0 to 100, based on the potential impact on outcome, as critical/noncritical/no errors of commission, omission, or procedure selection. Results: Errors in reasoning occurred in 100{\%} of the 97 cases studied, averaging 11.9/case. Errors of omission were more prevalent than errors of commission (2.4 errors/case vs 1.2) and were of greater severity (19.4/error vs 5.1). The largest number of errors involved the failure to record, and perhaps observe, bedside information relevant to the reasoning process, an average of 7.4 missing items/patient. Only 2 of the 10 adverse outcomes were judged to be potentially related to errors of reasoning. Conclusions: Process errors in reasoning were ubiquitous, occurring in every case, although they were infrequently judged to be potentially related to an adverse outcome. Errors of omission were assessed to be more severe. The most common error was failure to consider, or document, available relevant information in the selection of appropriate care.",
author = "Clarke, {John R.} and Beverly Spejewski and Gertner, {Abigail S.} and Webber, {Bonnie L.} and Hayward, {Catherine Z.} and Santora, {Thomas A.} and Wagner, {David K.} and Baker, {Christopher C.} and Champion, {Howard R.} and Timothy Fabian and Lewis, {Frank R.} and Moore, {Ernest E.} and Weigelt, {John A.} and Eastman, {A. Brent} and Cynthia Blank-Reid",
year = "2000",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/j.1553-2712.2000.tb00480.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "7",
pages = "1303--1310",
journal = "Academic Emergency Medicine",
issn = "1069-6563",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - An objective analysis of process errors in trauma resuscitations

AU - Clarke, John R.

AU - Spejewski, Beverly

AU - Gertner, Abigail S.

AU - Webber, Bonnie L.

AU - Hayward, Catherine Z.

AU - Santora, Thomas A.

AU - Wagner, David K.

AU - Baker, Christopher C.

AU - Champion, Howard R.

AU - Fabian, Timothy

AU - Lewis, Frank R.

AU - Moore, Ernest E.

AU - Weigelt, John A.

AU - Eastman, A. Brent

AU - Blank-Reid, Cynthia

PY - 2000/1/1

Y1 - 2000/1/1

N2 - Objective: A computer-based system to apply trauma resuscitation protocols to patients with penetrating thoracoabdominal trauma was previously validated for 97 consecutive patients at a Level 1 trauma center by a panel of the trauma attendings and further refined by a panel of national trauma experts. The purpose of this article is to describe how this system is now used to objectively critique the actual care given to those patients for process errors in reasoning, independent of outcome. Methods: A chronological narrative of the care of each patient was presented to the computer program. The actual care was compared with the validated computer protocols at each decision point and differences were classified by a predetermined scoring system from 0 to 100, based on the potential impact on outcome, as critical/noncritical/no errors of commission, omission, or procedure selection. Results: Errors in reasoning occurred in 100% of the 97 cases studied, averaging 11.9/case. Errors of omission were more prevalent than errors of commission (2.4 errors/case vs 1.2) and were of greater severity (19.4/error vs 5.1). The largest number of errors involved the failure to record, and perhaps observe, bedside information relevant to the reasoning process, an average of 7.4 missing items/patient. Only 2 of the 10 adverse outcomes were judged to be potentially related to errors of reasoning. Conclusions: Process errors in reasoning were ubiquitous, occurring in every case, although they were infrequently judged to be potentially related to an adverse outcome. Errors of omission were assessed to be more severe. The most common error was failure to consider, or document, available relevant information in the selection of appropriate care.

AB - Objective: A computer-based system to apply trauma resuscitation protocols to patients with penetrating thoracoabdominal trauma was previously validated for 97 consecutive patients at a Level 1 trauma center by a panel of the trauma attendings and further refined by a panel of national trauma experts. The purpose of this article is to describe how this system is now used to objectively critique the actual care given to those patients for process errors in reasoning, independent of outcome. Methods: A chronological narrative of the care of each patient was presented to the computer program. The actual care was compared with the validated computer protocols at each decision point and differences were classified by a predetermined scoring system from 0 to 100, based on the potential impact on outcome, as critical/noncritical/no errors of commission, omission, or procedure selection. Results: Errors in reasoning occurred in 100% of the 97 cases studied, averaging 11.9/case. Errors of omission were more prevalent than errors of commission (2.4 errors/case vs 1.2) and were of greater severity (19.4/error vs 5.1). The largest number of errors involved the failure to record, and perhaps observe, bedside information relevant to the reasoning process, an average of 7.4 missing items/patient. Only 2 of the 10 adverse outcomes were judged to be potentially related to errors of reasoning. Conclusions: Process errors in reasoning were ubiquitous, occurring in every case, although they were infrequently judged to be potentially related to an adverse outcome. Errors of omission were assessed to be more severe. The most common error was failure to consider, or document, available relevant information in the selection of appropriate care.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033763153&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033763153&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2000.tb00480.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2000.tb00480.x

M3 - Article

VL - 7

SP - 1303

EP - 1310

JO - Academic Emergency Medicine

JF - Academic Emergency Medicine

SN - 1069-6563

IS - 11

ER -