Search

Study Objective: Wrong-site nerve blocks (WSBs) are a significant, though rare, source of perioperative morbidity. WSBs constitute the most common type of perioperative wrong-site procedure reported to the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority. This systematic literature review aggregates information about the incidence, patient consequences, and conditions that contribute to WSBs, as well as evidence-based methods to prevent them., Design: A systematic search of English-language publications was performed, using the PRISMA process., Main Results: Seventy English-language publications were identified. Analysis of four publications reporting on at least 10,000 blocks provides a rate of 0.52 to 5.07 WSB per 10,000 blocks, unilateral blocks, or "at risk" procedures. The most commonly mentioned potential consequence was local anesthetic toxicity. The most commonly mentioned contributory factors were time pressure, personnel factors, and lack of site-mark visibility (including no site mark placed). Components of the block process that were addressed include preoperative nerve-block verification, nerve-block site marking, time-outs, and the healthcare facility's structure and culture of safety., Discussion: A lack of uniform reporting criteria and divergence in the data and theories presented may reflect the variety of circumstances affecting when and how nerve blocks are performed, as well as the infrequency of a WSB. However, multiple authors suggest three procedural steps that may help to prevent WSBs: (1) verify the nerve-block procedure using multiple sources of information, including the patient; (2) identify the nerve-block site with a visible mark; and (3) perform time-outs immediately prior to injection or instillation of the anesthetic. Hospitals, ambulatory surgical centers, and anesthesiology practices should consider creating site-verification processes with clinician input and support to develop sustainable WSB-prevention practices., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Communication failure is a common root cause of adverse clinical events. Problematic communication domains are difficult to decipher, and communication improvement strategies are scarce. This study compared perioperative incident reports (IR) identifying potential communication failures with the results of a contemporaneous peri-operative Relational Coordination (RC) survey. We hypothesised that IR-prevalent themes would map to areas-of-weakness identified in the RC survey. Perioperative IRs filed between 2018 and 2020 (n = 6,236) were manually reviewed to identify communication failures (n = 1049). The IRs were disaggregated into seven RC theory domains and compared with the RC survey. Report disaggregation ratings demonstrated a three-way inter-rater agreement of 91.2%. Of the 1,049 communication failure-related IRs, shared knowledge deficits (n = 479, 46%) or accurate communication (n = 465, 44%) were most frequently identified. Communication frequency failures (n = 3, 0.3%) were rarely coded. Comparatively, shared knowledge was the weakest domain in the RC survey, while communication frequency was the strongest, correlating well with our IR data. Linking IR with RC domains offers a novel approach to assessing the specific elements of communication failures with an acute care facility. This approach provides a deployable mechanism to trend intra- and inter-domain progress in communication success, and develop targeted interventions to mitigate against communication failure-related adverse events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]