Exploring Safety-II principles in anaesthetic airway management - a qualitative analysis of difficult and failed intubations reported to webAIRS.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Pub Date : 2025-07-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-26 DOI:10.1177/0310057X251318351
Yasmin Endlich, Ellen L Davies, Janet Kelly
{"title":"Exploring Safety-II principles in anaesthetic airway management - a qualitative analysis of difficult and failed intubations reported to webAIRS.","authors":"Yasmin Endlich, Ellen L Davies, Janet Kelly","doi":"10.1177/0310057X251318351","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Anaesthetic airway incidents persist as a significant concern in patient safety and, despite extensive investigations, continue to cause patient harm. Traditional safety investigations predominantly adhere to Safety-I principles, focusing on identifying and rectifying errors, often yielding limited new findings. In this analysis conducted within the webAIRS database, the focus shifted towards Safety-II principles. The aim of this study was to identify factors contributing to airway management safety by examining incidents that did not result in adverse patient outcomes. Incidents categorised as 'difficult intubation' or 'failed intubation' without causing harm to the patient and reported to webAIRS between 2016 and 2022, were included in the analysis.An inductive qualitative content analysis of narrative data from 129 such incidents revealed that the majority of reported events depicted scenarios deviating from controlled and planned circumstances. During the analysis four themes were identified: patient factors, system factors, individual anaesthetist factors and airway management strategy. Within the first three themes, multiple factors were linked to airway management strategies. The findings of this qualitative analysis show that 'Work as done' often differs from 'Work as imagined'.This qualitative analysis highlighted the dynamic nature of human management, as individuals respond to unplanned or unexpected events, showcasing adaptability and positive contributions to incident performance. Expanding the understanding of patient safety to also include Safety-II principles, provides a deeper and wider understanding of airway management safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":7746,"journal":{"name":"Anaesthesia and Intensive Care","volume":" ","pages":"253-264"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anaesthesia and Intensive Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0310057X251318351","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Anaesthetic airway incidents persist as a significant concern in patient safety and, despite extensive investigations, continue to cause patient harm. Traditional safety investigations predominantly adhere to Safety-I principles, focusing on identifying and rectifying errors, often yielding limited new findings. In this analysis conducted within the webAIRS database, the focus shifted towards Safety-II principles. The aim of this study was to identify factors contributing to airway management safety by examining incidents that did not result in adverse patient outcomes. Incidents categorised as 'difficult intubation' or 'failed intubation' without causing harm to the patient and reported to webAIRS between 2016 and 2022, were included in the analysis.An inductive qualitative content analysis of narrative data from 129 such incidents revealed that the majority of reported events depicted scenarios deviating from controlled and planned circumstances. During the analysis four themes were identified: patient factors, system factors, individual anaesthetist factors and airway management strategy. Within the first three themes, multiple factors were linked to airway management strategies. The findings of this qualitative analysis show that 'Work as done' often differs from 'Work as imagined'.This qualitative analysis highlighted the dynamic nature of human management, as individuals respond to unplanned or unexpected events, showcasing adaptability and positive contributions to incident performance. Expanding the understanding of patient safety to also include Safety-II principles, provides a deeper and wider understanding of airway management safety.

探索麻醉气道管理的安全ii原则-对困难和失败插管的定性分析报告webAIRS。
麻醉气道事件一直是患者安全的一个重大问题,尽管进行了广泛的调查,但仍继续对患者造成伤害。传统的安全调查主要遵循safety - i原则,侧重于识别和纠正错误,通常只能得到有限的新发现。在webAIRS数据库中进行的分析中,重点转向了Safety-II原则。本研究的目的是通过检查未导致不良患者结果的事件来确定有助于气道管理安全的因素。归类为“插管困难”或“插管失败”但未对患者造成伤害并在2016年至2022年期间报告给webAIRS的事件被纳入分析。对129起此类事件的叙事数据进行归纳定性内容分析显示,大多数报道的事件描述的情景偏离了控制和计划的情况。在分析过程中确定了四个主题:患者因素、系统因素、个体麻醉师因素和气道管理策略。在前三个主题中,多个因素与气道管理策略有关。这一定性分析的结果表明,“已完成的工作”往往不同于“想象中的工作”。这种定性分析强调了人类管理的动态本质,因为个体对计划外或意外事件做出反应,展示了适应性和对事件性能的积极贡献。将对患者安全的理解扩展到包括safety - ii原则,可以更深入、更广泛地理解气道管理安全。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
13.30%
发文量
150
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Anaesthesia and Intensive Care is an international journal publishing timely, peer reviewed articles that have educational value and scientific merit for clinicians and researchers associated with anaesthesia, intensive care medicine, and pain medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信