【24h】

Analysis and prioritization of near-miss adverse events in a radiology department.

机译:放射科对未遂不良事件的分析和优先级划分。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to describe a method for the evaluation and prioritization of near-miss events in a radiology department. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-two consecutive near-miss events occurring between 2007 and 2009 were retrospectively evaluated, classified by error type, and scored for five elements associated with risk. The worst outcome potentially associated with each event was predicted by consensus and scored on a standardized 5-point complications grading scale. Scores were then assigned for event frequency, method of detection, barrier number, and quality. The product of individual scores, ranging from 1 to 180, was termed the hazard score. Events were analyzed by error type, element scores, and hazard score. RESULTS: Electronic order entry errors were the most common error type, and 90% of these errors originated outside the radiology department. More than half (65%) of the events were assigned maximal severity scores, and 68% of the errors had been encountered three or more times previously. Twenty-five events (40%) were detected by good fortune rather than by plan. No barrier to the projected worst outcome was identified in nearly half (47%) of cases. In most instances (73%), strong barriers were absent. Nine events (15%) had maximal hazard scores of 180, whereas 21 events (34%) had hazard scores of 30 or less. CONCLUSION: This method was constructed from standardized definitions of outcome severity, the ability of current systems to detect or mitigate an adverse event or outcome, and event frequency and offers a tool for systematic evaluation and stratification of near-miss adverse events.
机译:目的:本研究的目的是描述一种评估放射科中未命中事件的优先级的方法。材料与方法:回顾性评估2007年至2009年之间发生的62次连续未遂事件,按错误类型分类,并对与风险相关的五个要素进行评分。共识预测了每个事件潜在的最坏结局,并以标准化的5点并发症分级量表评分。然后为事件发生频率,检测方法,障碍数和质量分配分数。单个分数的乘积范围从1到180,称为危险分数。通过错误类型,元素评分和危险评分来分析事件。结果:电子订单输入错误是最常见的错误类型,其中90%的错误源于放射科以外。超过一半(65%)的事件被分配了最高严重性评分,并且68%的错误之前曾遇到过3次或更多次。有25个事件(占40%)是通过好运而非计划发现的。在将近一半(47%)的病例中,没有发现预期的最差结果的障碍。在大多数情况下(73%),没有强大的障碍。 9个事件(占15%)的最大危险分数为180,而21个事件(占34%)的最大危险分数为30或更低。结论:该方法是基于对结果严重性,当前系统检测或减轻不良事件或结果的能力以及事件发生频率的标准化定义而构建的,并为系统评估和未遂不良事件进行分层提供了一种工具。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号