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}
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.
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.