Deaths during general anesthesia: technology-related, due to human error, or unavoidable? An ECRI technology assessment.

Journal of health care technology Pub Date : 1985-01-01
{"title":"Deaths during general anesthesia: technology-related, due to human error, or unavoidable? An ECRI technology assessment.","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>More than 2,000 healthy Americans die each year during general anesthesia, and at least half of these deaths may be preventable. Anesthetists and equipment manufacturers have made considerable progress in improving anesthesia safety. However, much more needs to be done, especially in \"human-factors\" areas such as improved training, consistent use of preanesthesia checklists, and anesthetists' willingness to enhance their vigilance by using appropriate monitoring equipment. While defective equipment and supplies are the direct cause of relatively few deaths, inexpensive oxygen analyzers and disconnect alarms could, if available in more ORs, warn anesthetists in time to convert many deaths to near misses. Some anesthetists are using other monitoring technologies that are more costly, but can detect a wider range of problems. The anesthesia community could expand its anesthesia-safety leadership and guidance, by improving technology-related training and by developing practice standards for anesthetists and safety standards for equipment. The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals could impose specific safety requirements on hospitals; malpractice insurance carriers could require anesthetists and hospitals to use monitors and alarms during all procedures; and the Food and Drug Administration could actively stimulate and oversee these efforts and perhaps provide seed money for some of them. The necessary equipment costs would likely be offset by long-term savings in malpractice premiums, as anesthesia incidents are the most costly of all types of malpractice claims. Concerted efforts such as these could greatly reduce the number of avoidable anesthesia-related deaths.</p>","PeriodicalId":80026,"journal":{"name":"Journal of health care technology","volume":"1 3","pages":"155-75"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1985-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of health care technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

More than 2,000 healthy Americans die each year during general anesthesia, and at least half of these deaths may be preventable. Anesthetists and equipment manufacturers have made considerable progress in improving anesthesia safety. However, much more needs to be done, especially in "human-factors" areas such as improved training, consistent use of preanesthesia checklists, and anesthetists' willingness to enhance their vigilance by using appropriate monitoring equipment. While defective equipment and supplies are the direct cause of relatively few deaths, inexpensive oxygen analyzers and disconnect alarms could, if available in more ORs, warn anesthetists in time to convert many deaths to near misses. Some anesthetists are using other monitoring technologies that are more costly, but can detect a wider range of problems. The anesthesia community could expand its anesthesia-safety leadership and guidance, by improving technology-related training and by developing practice standards for anesthetists and safety standards for equipment. The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals could impose specific safety requirements on hospitals; malpractice insurance carriers could require anesthetists and hospitals to use monitors and alarms during all procedures; and the Food and Drug Administration could actively stimulate and oversee these efforts and perhaps provide seed money for some of them. The necessary equipment costs would likely be offset by long-term savings in malpractice premiums, as anesthesia incidents are the most costly of all types of malpractice claims. Concerted efforts such as these could greatly reduce the number of avoidable anesthesia-related deaths.

全身麻醉期间的死亡:与技术有关,由于人为错误,还是不可避免?ECRI技术评估。
每年有超过2000名健康的美国人死于全身麻醉,其中至少一半的死亡是可以避免的。麻醉师和设备制造商在提高麻醉安全性方面取得了相当大的进展。然而,需要做的还有很多,特别是在“人为因素”方面,如改进培训、持续使用麻醉前检查清单,以及麻醉师愿意通过使用适当的监测设备来提高他们的警惕性。虽然有缺陷的设备和供应是相对较少死亡的直接原因,但如果在更多的手术室中使用廉价的氧气分析仪和断开警报,可以及时向麻醉师发出警告,将许多死亡转变为侥幸死亡。一些麻醉师正在使用其他更昂贵的监测技术,但可以检测到更广泛的问题。麻醉界可以通过改进与技术相关的培训、制定麻醉师的操作标准和设备的安全标准来扩大其麻醉安全的领导和指导。医院认证联合委员会可对医院提出具体的安全要求;医疗事故保险公司可以要求麻醉师和医院在所有手术过程中使用监视器和警报器;食品和药物管理局可以积极地刺激和监督这些努力,也许还可以为其中一些提供种子资金。必要的设备成本可能会被医疗事故保费的长期节省所抵消,因为麻醉事故是所有类型的医疗事故索赔中成本最高的。诸如此类的协同努力可以大大减少可避免的与麻醉有关的死亡人数。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信