Neuraxial Medication Administration Errors During Anaesthesia and Perioperative Management, Consequences, Contributing Human and Systemic Factors and Their Prevention: A Systematic Review.

IF 4.4 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Santosh Patel
{"title":"Neuraxial Medication Administration Errors During Anaesthesia and Perioperative Management, Consequences, Contributing Human and Systemic Factors and Their Prevention: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Santosh Patel","doi":"10.1007/s40122-026-00889-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This systematic review aimed to investigate neuraxial administration errors, examine their contributing factors, and evaluate clinical outcomes using a novel harm scale.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The author searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, EBSCOhost, and Google Scholar for reports from 1981 to 2025 in any language. Exclusions were reviews, overdose incidents, and non-neuraxial administrations. Harm was classified using a novel five-level scale, and contributing factors were identified using the Human and Systemic Factors Analysis Classification System (HFACS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search revealed 50 reports (54 patients), mainly involving the epidural route (38 vs 16 intrathecal), non-obstetric patients (35 vs 17 obstetric), and female gender (73%). Medications were grouped into nine divisions: IV fluids/total parenteral nutrition/insulin, anticholinergics, antiseptics, antiemetics, anticoagulants, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, Syntocinon, and others. Atropine (6 patients) was the most common, followed by remifentanil (4), Syntocinon (4), chlorhexidine (3), and water (3). Level 4 events (irreversible paraplegia or quadriplegia, 4 patients) and level 5 events (death, 4 patients) were mostly due to accidental antiseptic bolus administration. Inadvertent neuraxial drug administration occurred at different locations and during various stages of clinical care. The Human Factors Analysis Classification System (HFACS) identified unsafe acts related to skill-based errors and misidentification of routinely used objects. Additional deficiencies included organisational processes, resources, supervision, and task execution for neuraxial anaesthesia or analgesia.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Level 4 and 5 harm was mainly associated with the administration of antiseptic solutions. The HFACS framework-based analysis suggested multiple modifiable institutional and individual deficiencies. Multidisciplinary improvements of organisational safety procedures, relevant preconditions, and neuraxial clinical practices may help prevent these serious incidents.</p>","PeriodicalId":19908,"journal":{"name":"Pain and Therapy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain and Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40122-026-00889-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: This systematic review aimed to investigate neuraxial administration errors, examine their contributing factors, and evaluate clinical outcomes using a novel harm scale.

Methods: The author searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, EBSCOhost, and Google Scholar for reports from 1981 to 2025 in any language. Exclusions were reviews, overdose incidents, and non-neuraxial administrations. Harm was classified using a novel five-level scale, and contributing factors were identified using the Human and Systemic Factors Analysis Classification System (HFACS).

Results: The search revealed 50 reports (54 patients), mainly involving the epidural route (38 vs 16 intrathecal), non-obstetric patients (35 vs 17 obstetric), and female gender (73%). Medications were grouped into nine divisions: IV fluids/total parenteral nutrition/insulin, anticholinergics, antiseptics, antiemetics, anticoagulants, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, Syntocinon, and others. Atropine (6 patients) was the most common, followed by remifentanil (4), Syntocinon (4), chlorhexidine (3), and water (3). Level 4 events (irreversible paraplegia or quadriplegia, 4 patients) and level 5 events (death, 4 patients) were mostly due to accidental antiseptic bolus administration. Inadvertent neuraxial drug administration occurred at different locations and during various stages of clinical care. The Human Factors Analysis Classification System (HFACS) identified unsafe acts related to skill-based errors and misidentification of routinely used objects. Additional deficiencies included organisational processes, resources, supervision, and task execution for neuraxial anaesthesia or analgesia.

Conclusions: Level 4 and 5 harm was mainly associated with the administration of antiseptic solutions. The HFACS framework-based analysis suggested multiple modifiable institutional and individual deficiencies. Multidisciplinary improvements of organisational safety procedures, relevant preconditions, and neuraxial clinical practices may help prevent these serious incidents.

麻醉和围手术期的神经轴给药错误、后果、人为因素和全身因素及其预防:系统综述。
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
Pain and Therapy
Pain and Therapy CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
5.00%
发文量
110
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: Pain and Therapy is an international, open access, peer-reviewed, rapid publication journal dedicated to the publication of high-quality clinical (all phases), observational, real-world, and health outcomes research around the discovery, development, and use of pain therapies and pain-related devices. Studies relating to diagnosis, pharmacoeconomics, public health, quality of life, and patient care, management, and education are also encouraged. Areas of focus include, but are not limited to, acute pain, cancer pain, chronic pain, headache and migraine, neuropathic pain, opioids, palliative care and pain ethics, peri- and post-operative pain as well as rheumatic pain and fibromyalgia. The journal is of interest to a broad audience of pharmaceutical and healthcare professionals and publishes original research, reviews, case reports, trial protocols, short communications such as commentaries and editorials, and letters. The journal is read by a global audience and receives submissions from around the world. Pain and Therapy will consider all scientifically sound research be it positive, confirmatory or negative data. Submissions are welcomed whether they relate to an international and/or a country-specific audience, something that is crucially important when researchers are trying to target more specific patient populations. This inclusive approach allows the journal to assist in the dissemination of all scientifically and ethically sound research.
×
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
小红书