困难气道管理中认知错误的发生率:来自儿科困难插管登记处的人为因素推断研究。

IF 9.2 1区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Martina Bordini, Luca Orsini, Simon Y W Li, Julia Olsen, Mary Lyn Stein, Lina A Sarmiento Argüello, Emily B Hesselink, Angela C Lee, Piedad C Echeverry, Lisa K Lee, Elizabeth M O'Brien, Priti G Dalal, Agnes Hunyady, Simon Whyte, Melissa Brooks-Peterson, Annery G Garcia-Marcinkiewicz, Pete Kovatsis, James Peyton, Britta S Von Ungern-Sternberg, John Fiadjoe, Clyde Matava
{"title":"困难气道管理中认知错误的发生率:来自儿科困难插管登记处的人为因素推断研究。","authors":"Martina Bordini, Luca Orsini, Simon Y W Li, Julia Olsen, Mary Lyn Stein, Lina A Sarmiento Argüello, Emily B Hesselink, Angela C Lee, Piedad C Echeverry, Lisa K Lee, Elizabeth M O'Brien, Priti G Dalal, Agnes Hunyady, Simon Whyte, Melissa Brooks-Peterson, Annery G Garcia-Marcinkiewicz, Pete Kovatsis, James Peyton, Britta S Von Ungern-Sternberg, John Fiadjoe, Clyde Matava","doi":"10.1016/j.bja.2025.04.033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cognitive errors are known contributors to poor decision-making in healthcare. However, their incidence and extent of their contribution to negative outcomes during difficult airway management are unknown. We aimed to identify cognitive errors during paediatric difficult airway management using data from the Pediatric Difficult Intubation (PeDI) registry, to determine patient and clinician factors associated with these errors, and their contribution to complications.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective analysis of the PeDI registry data including cases with at least three intubation attempts. Cognitive error definitions were adapted to airway management, and predefined clinical endpoints were used to identify cognitive errors. A subanalysis was performed for children weighing <5 kg. Our primary outcome was the overall incidence of cognitive errors. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of specific cognitive error subtypes, associations with patient and clinician factors, and the relationship between cognitive errors and complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Cognitive errors were identified in 17.4% (487/2801) of cases, with fixation errors being the most common (11.5%), followed by omission bias (5.9%) and overconfidence bias (4.5%). Non-anaesthesiologist clinicians had the highest odds of cognitive errors. The presence of at least one cognitive error was independently associated with a higher risk of complications (adjusted odds ratio, 1.86 [95% confidence interval, 1.53-2.27]; P<0.001), and multiple errors increased the likelihood of severe complications (adjusted odds ratio, 2.48 [95% confidence interval, 1.24-4.94]; P=0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Cognitive errors occurred in nearly 20% of paediatric difficult airway encounters and were linked to increased complications. Further research should refine error definitions and develop mitigation strategies to improve outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":9250,"journal":{"name":"British journal of anaesthesia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Incidence of cognitive errors in difficult airway management: an inference human factors study from the Pediatric Difficult Intubation Registry.\",\"authors\":\"Martina Bordini, Luca Orsini, Simon Y W Li, Julia Olsen, Mary Lyn Stein, Lina A Sarmiento Argüello, Emily B Hesselink, Angela C Lee, Piedad C Echeverry, Lisa K Lee, Elizabeth M O'Brien, Priti G Dalal, Agnes Hunyady, Simon Whyte, Melissa Brooks-Peterson, Annery G Garcia-Marcinkiewicz, Pete Kovatsis, James Peyton, Britta S Von Ungern-Sternberg, John Fiadjoe, Clyde Matava\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.bja.2025.04.033\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cognitive errors are known contributors to poor decision-making in healthcare. However, their incidence and extent of their contribution to negative outcomes during difficult airway management are unknown. We aimed to identify cognitive errors during paediatric difficult airway management using data from the Pediatric Difficult Intubation (PeDI) registry, to determine patient and clinician factors associated with these errors, and their contribution to complications.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective analysis of the PeDI registry data including cases with at least three intubation attempts. Cognitive error definitions were adapted to airway management, and predefined clinical endpoints were used to identify cognitive errors. A subanalysis was performed for children weighing <5 kg. Our primary outcome was the overall incidence of cognitive errors. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of specific cognitive error subtypes, associations with patient and clinician factors, and the relationship between cognitive errors and complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Cognitive errors were identified in 17.4% (487/2801) of cases, with fixation errors being the most common (11.5%), followed by omission bias (5.9%) and overconfidence bias (4.5%). Non-anaesthesiologist clinicians had the highest odds of cognitive errors. The presence of at least one cognitive error was independently associated with a higher risk of complications (adjusted odds ratio, 1.86 [95% confidence interval, 1.53-2.27]; P<0.001), and multiple errors increased the likelihood of severe complications (adjusted odds ratio, 2.48 [95% confidence interval, 1.24-4.94]; P=0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Cognitive errors occurred in nearly 20% of paediatric difficult airway encounters and were linked to increased complications. Further research should refine error definitions and develop mitigation strategies to improve outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9250,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British journal of anaesthesia\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British journal of anaesthesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2025.04.033\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2025.04.033","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:认知错误是医疗保健决策不良的已知因素。然而,在困难的气道管理期间,它们的发生率和对负面结果的贡献程度尚不清楚。我们的目的是利用儿科困难插管(PeDI)登记的数据来识别儿科困难气道管理期间的认知错误,确定与这些错误相关的患者和临床医生因素,以及它们对并发症的贡献。方法:我们对PeDI注册数据进行回顾性分析,包括至少三次插管尝试的病例。认知错误的定义适用于气道管理,并使用预定义的临床终点来识别认知错误。结果:17.4%(487/2801)的病例存在认知错误,其中最常见的是注视错误(11.5%),其次是遗漏偏差(5.9%)和过度自信偏差(4.5%)。非麻醉医师的临床医生出现认知错误的几率最高。存在至少一种认知错误与较高的并发症风险独立相关(校正优势比为1.86[95%可信区间为1.53-2.27];结论:近20%的儿科气道困难患者发生认知错误,并与并发症增加有关。进一步的研究应完善错误定义并制定缓解战略以改善结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Incidence of cognitive errors in difficult airway management: an inference human factors study from the Pediatric Difficult Intubation Registry.

Background: Cognitive errors are known contributors to poor decision-making in healthcare. However, their incidence and extent of their contribution to negative outcomes during difficult airway management are unknown. We aimed to identify cognitive errors during paediatric difficult airway management using data from the Pediatric Difficult Intubation (PeDI) registry, to determine patient and clinician factors associated with these errors, and their contribution to complications.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the PeDI registry data including cases with at least three intubation attempts. Cognitive error definitions were adapted to airway management, and predefined clinical endpoints were used to identify cognitive errors. A subanalysis was performed for children weighing <5 kg. Our primary outcome was the overall incidence of cognitive errors. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of specific cognitive error subtypes, associations with patient and clinician factors, and the relationship between cognitive errors and complications.

Results: Cognitive errors were identified in 17.4% (487/2801) of cases, with fixation errors being the most common (11.5%), followed by omission bias (5.9%) and overconfidence bias (4.5%). Non-anaesthesiologist clinicians had the highest odds of cognitive errors. The presence of at least one cognitive error was independently associated with a higher risk of complications (adjusted odds ratio, 1.86 [95% confidence interval, 1.53-2.27]; P<0.001), and multiple errors increased the likelihood of severe complications (adjusted odds ratio, 2.48 [95% confidence interval, 1.24-4.94]; P=0.01).

Conclusions: Cognitive errors occurred in nearly 20% of paediatric difficult airway encounters and were linked to increased complications. Further research should refine error definitions and develop mitigation strategies to improve outcomes.

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
CiteScore
13.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
488
审稿时长
27 days
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA) is a prestigious publication that covers a wide range of topics in anaesthesia, critical care medicine, pain medicine, and perioperative medicine. It aims to disseminate high-impact original research, spanning fundamental, translational, and clinical sciences, as well as clinical practice, technology, education, and training. Additionally, the journal features review articles, notable case reports, correspondence, and special articles that appeal to a broader audience. The BJA is proudly associated with The Royal College of Anaesthetists, The College of Anaesthesiologists of Ireland, and The Hong Kong College of Anaesthesiologists. This partnership provides members of these esteemed institutions with access to not only the BJA but also its sister publication, BJA Education. It is essential to note that both journals maintain their editorial independence. Overall, the BJA offers a diverse and comprehensive platform for anaesthetists, critical care physicians, pain specialists, and perioperative medicine practitioners to contribute and stay updated with the latest advancements in their respective fields.
×
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