41
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Analysis of Anesthesia-related Medical Disputes in the 2009-2014 Period Using the Korean Society of Anesthesiologists Database

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Using the Korean Society of Anesthesiologists database of anesthesia-related medical disputes (July 2009-June 2014), causative mechanisms and injury patterns were analyzed. In total, 105 cases were analyzed. Most patients were aged < 60 yr (82.9%) and were classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status ≤ II (90.5%). In 42.9% of all cases, the injuries were determined to be 'avoidable' if the appropriate standard of care had been applied. Sedation was the sec most common type of anesthesia (37.1% of all cases), following by general anesthesia. Most sedation cases (27/39, 69.2%) showed a common lack of vigilance: no pre-procedural testing (82.1%), absence of anesthesia record (89.7%), and non-use of intra-procedural monitoring (15.4%). Most sedation (92.3%) was provided simultaneously by the non-anesthesiologists who performed the procedures. After the resulting injuries were grouped into four categories (temporary, permanent/minor, permanent/major, and death), their causative mechanisms were analyzed in cases with permanent injuries (n=20) and death (n=82). A 'respiratory events' was the leading causative mechanism (56/102, 54.9%). Of these, the most common specific mechanism was hypoxia secondary to airway obstruction or respiratory depression (n=31). The sec most common damaging event was a 'cardiovascular events' (26/102, 25.5%), in which myocardial infarction was the most common specific mechanism (n=12). Our database analysis demonstrated several typical injury profiles (a lack of vigilance in seemingly safe procedures or sedation, non-compliance with the airway management guidelines, and the prevalence of myocardial infarction) and can be helpful to improve patient safety.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Practice guidelines for management of the difficult airway: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Management of the Difficult Airway.

          (2003)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Practice guidelines for preoperative fasting and the use of pharmacologic agents to reduce the risk of pulmonary aspiration: application to healthy patients undergoing elective procedures: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Committee on Standards and Practice Parameters.

            (2011)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Management of the difficult airway: a closed claims analysis.

              The purpose of this study was to identify the patterns of liability associated with malpractice claims arising from management of the difficult airway. Using the American Society of Anesthesiologists Closed Claims database, the authors examined 179 claims for difficult airway management between 1985 and 1999 where a supplemental data collection tool was used and focused on airway management, outcomes, and the role of the 1993 Difficult Airway Guidelines in litigation. Chi-square tests and multiple logistic regression analysis compared risk factors for death or brain damage (death/BD) from two time periods: 1985-1992 and 1993-1999. Difficult airway claims arose throughout the perioperative period: 67% upon induction, 15% during surgery, 12% at extubation, and 5% during recovery. Death/BD with induction of anesthesia decreased in 1993-1999 (35%) compared with 1985-1992 (62%; P < 0.05; odds ratio, 0.26; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.63; P = 0.003). In contrast, death/BD associated with other phases of anesthesia did not significantly change over the time periods. The odds of death/BD were increased by the development of an airway emergency (odds ratio, 14.98; 95% confidence interval, 6.37-35.27; P < 0.001). During airway emergencies, persistent intubation attempts were associated with death/BD (P < 0.05). Since 1993, the Airway Guidelines were used to defend care (8%) and criticize care (3%). Death/BD in claims from difficult airway management associated with induction of anesthesia but not other phases of anesthesia decreased in 1993-1999 compared with 1985-1992. Development of additional management strategies for difficult airways encountered during maintenance, emergence, or recovery from anesthesia may improve patient safety.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Korean Med Sci
                J. Korean Med. Sci
                JKMS
                Journal of Korean Medical Science
                The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences
                1011-8934
                1598-6357
                February 2015
                21 January 2015
                : 30
                : 2
                : 207-213
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, School of Medicine, The Catholic University of Daegu, Daegu, Korea.
                [2 ]Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
                [3 ]Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea.
                [4 ]Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
                [5 ]Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, College of Medicine, Dong-A University, Busan, Korea.
                [6 ]Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, College of Medicine, Chungnam National University, Daejeon, Korea.
                [7 ]Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, School of Medicine, Keimyung University, Daegu, Korea.
                Author notes
                Address for Correspondence: Duk-Kyung Kim, MD. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 135-710, Korea. Tel: +82.2-3410-6590, Fax: +82.2-3410-6626, dikei@ 123456hanmail.net
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4868-9065
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6555-2100
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7168-4214
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7764-9818
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8669-5517
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0178-6346
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8669-129X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4425-2299
                Article
                10.3346/jkms.2015.30.2.207
                4310949
                25653494
                2dcc2b61-5be8-4f42-9656-795a3396c0b5
                © 2015 The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 17 June 2014
                : 01 October 2014
                Categories
                Original Article
                Anesthesiology & Pain

                Medicine
                adverse effects,injuries,legislation,malpractice
                Medicine
                adverse effects, injuries, legislation, malpractice

                Comments

                Comment on this article