对一家小动物多专科兽医教学医院发病率和死亡率会议(M&Ms)报告的错误和事件进行分类。

IF 1.3 4区 农林科学 Q2 VETERINARY SCIENCES
G Giles, LA Boland, N Kirkwood, MP Ward, A Quain
{"title":"对一家小动物多专科兽医教学医院发病率和死亡率会议(M&Ms)报告的错误和事件进行分类。","authors":"G Giles,&nbsp;LA Boland,&nbsp;N Kirkwood,&nbsp;MP Ward,&nbsp;A Quain","doi":"10.1111/avj.13426","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Errors in veterinary clinical settings can lead to patient harm. Morbidity and mortality meetings (M&amp;Ms) are forums to discuss errors and incidents that can lead or have led to adverse outcomes, potential harm or unsafe conditions, with the purpose of improving patient safety in future. Despite growing implementation of M&amp;Ms in veterinary medicine, their effectiveness in improving future patient safety may be constrained by the need for absolute confidentiality during meetings.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>To pilot the use of a simple framework to categorise errors and incidents triggering M&amp;Ms in a multi-specialty Australian veterinary teaching hospital.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methodology</h3>\n \n <p>A retrospective analysis of deidentified M&amp;M summaries over 5 years (2018–2023) from a small animal multi-specialty veterinary teaching hospital. Animal demographic and incident information were extracted, classified by incident type and severity of harm adapted from Wallis and colleagues (2019). Descriptive statistics were produced for error category, severity, incident type and quarter of the year they occurred in. Recommendations were analysed using codebook thematic analysis.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>There were 68 cases in total. The most common overall errors were oversight (n = 26/25.0%), drug (n = 20/19.2%), iatrogenic (n = 17, 16.3%) and staff (n = 17, 16.3%). Most cases resulted in temporary harm (n = 36, 52.9%), though 20.6% (n = 14) resulted in death, euthanasia or permanent harm. The most frequent recommendations were ‘improving communications and record keeping’, improving staff training’ and ‘ensuring appropriate equipment is available’.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Categorisation of errors using this simple framework can facilitate sharing of information which can be used to refine practices and improve animal safety, without compromising confidentiality of M&amp;M meetings.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":8661,"journal":{"name":"Australian Veterinary Journal","volume":"103 5","pages":"267-275"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/avj.13426","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Categorising reported errors and incidents from morbidity and mortality meetings (M&Ms) in a small animal multi-specialty veterinary teaching hospital\",\"authors\":\"G Giles,&nbsp;LA Boland,&nbsp;N Kirkwood,&nbsp;MP Ward,&nbsp;A Quain\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/avj.13426\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Errors in veterinary clinical settings can lead to patient harm. Morbidity and mortality meetings (M&amp;Ms) are forums to discuss errors and incidents that can lead or have led to adverse outcomes, potential harm or unsafe conditions, with the purpose of improving patient safety in future. Despite growing implementation of M&amp;Ms in veterinary medicine, their effectiveness in improving future patient safety may be constrained by the need for absolute confidentiality during meetings.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objective</h3>\\n \\n <p>To pilot the use of a simple framework to categorise errors and incidents triggering M&amp;Ms in a multi-specialty Australian veterinary teaching hospital.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methodology</h3>\\n \\n <p>A retrospective analysis of deidentified M&amp;M summaries over 5 years (2018–2023) from a small animal multi-specialty veterinary teaching hospital. Animal demographic and incident information were extracted, classified by incident type and severity of harm adapted from Wallis and colleagues (2019). Descriptive statistics were produced for error category, severity, incident type and quarter of the year they occurred in. Recommendations were analysed using codebook thematic analysis.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>There were 68 cases in total. The most common overall errors were oversight (n = 26/25.0%), drug (n = 20/19.2%), iatrogenic (n = 17, 16.3%) and staff (n = 17, 16.3%). Most cases resulted in temporary harm (n = 36, 52.9%), though 20.6% (n = 14) resulted in death, euthanasia or permanent harm. The most frequent recommendations were ‘improving communications and record keeping’, improving staff training’ and ‘ensuring appropriate equipment is available’.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Categorisation of errors using this simple framework can facilitate sharing of information which can be used to refine practices and improve animal safety, without compromising confidentiality of M&amp;M meetings.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8661,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Veterinary Journal\",\"volume\":\"103 5\",\"pages\":\"267-275\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/avj.13426\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Veterinary Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/avj.13426\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"VETERINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Veterinary Journal","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/avj.13426","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:兽医临床设置中的错误可能导致患者伤害。发病率和死亡率会议(M&Ms)是讨论可能导致或已经导致不良后果、潜在伤害或不安全状况的错误和事件的论坛,目的是提高未来患者的安全。尽管在兽医学中越来越多地实施m&m,但它们在改善未来患者安全方面的有效性可能受到会议期间绝对保密的需要的限制。目的:在澳大利亚一家多专业兽医教学医院试点使用一个简单的框架来对引发m&m的错误和事件进行分类。方法:回顾性分析某小动物多专科兽医教学医院5年(2018-2023年)未识别的M&M总结。提取动物人口统计和事件信息,并根据事件类型和伤害严重程度进行分类(改编自Wallis及其同事(2019))。对错误类别、严重程度、事件类型和发生年份的季度进行了描述性统计。使用代码本专题分析对建议进行了分析。结果:共68例。最常见的总体错误是疏忽(n = 26/25.0%)、药物(n = 20/19.2%)、医源性(n = 17、16.3%)和工作人员(n = 17、16.3%)。大多数病例导致暂时性伤害(n = 36, 52.9%), 20.6% (n = 14)导致死亡、安乐死或永久性伤害。最常见的建议是“改善沟通和记录保存”,“改善员工培训”和“确保适当的设备可用”。结论:使用这个简单的框架对错误进行分类可以促进信息共享,这些信息可用于改进实践和提高动物安全,而不会损害M&M会议的保密性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Categorising reported errors and incidents from morbidity and mortality meetings (M&Ms) in a small animal multi-specialty veterinary teaching hospital

Categorising reported errors and incidents from morbidity and mortality meetings (M&Ms) in a small animal multi-specialty veterinary teaching hospital

Background

Errors in veterinary clinical settings can lead to patient harm. Morbidity and mortality meetings (M&Ms) are forums to discuss errors and incidents that can lead or have led to adverse outcomes, potential harm or unsafe conditions, with the purpose of improving patient safety in future. Despite growing implementation of M&Ms in veterinary medicine, their effectiveness in improving future patient safety may be constrained by the need for absolute confidentiality during meetings.

Objective

To pilot the use of a simple framework to categorise errors and incidents triggering M&Ms in a multi-specialty Australian veterinary teaching hospital.

Methodology

A retrospective analysis of deidentified M&M summaries over 5 years (2018–2023) from a small animal multi-specialty veterinary teaching hospital. Animal demographic and incident information were extracted, classified by incident type and severity of harm adapted from Wallis and colleagues (2019). Descriptive statistics were produced for error category, severity, incident type and quarter of the year they occurred in. Recommendations were analysed using codebook thematic analysis.

Results

There were 68 cases in total. The most common overall errors were oversight (n = 26/25.0%), drug (n = 20/19.2%), iatrogenic (n = 17, 16.3%) and staff (n = 17, 16.3%). Most cases resulted in temporary harm (n = 36, 52.9%), though 20.6% (n = 14) resulted in death, euthanasia or permanent harm. The most frequent recommendations were ‘improving communications and record keeping’, improving staff training’ and ‘ensuring appropriate equipment is available’.

Conclusion

Categorisation of errors using this simple framework can facilitate sharing of information which can be used to refine practices and improve animal safety, without compromising confidentiality of M&M meetings.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Australian Veterinary Journal
Australian Veterinary Journal 农林科学-兽医学
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
85
审稿时长
18-36 weeks
期刊介绍: Over the past 80 years, the Australian Veterinary Journal (AVJ) has been providing the veterinary profession with leading edge clinical and scientific research, case reports, reviews. news and timely coverage of industry issues. AJV is Australia''s premier veterinary science text and is distributed monthly to over 5,500 Australian Veterinary Association members and subscribers.
×
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