Search

Background: Adverse events are a prevalent occurrence across pediatric healthcare environments, and patient safety is intricately tied to nursing errors due to nurses' consistent presence and interaction with patients, which surpasses that of any other healthcare professional. This research sought to explore the factors influencing errors as perceived by pediatric nurses in Greek hospital settings. Methods: Clinical pediatric nurses voluntarily and anonymously completed a specialized structured survey, utilizing the Taxonomy of Error, Root Cause Analysis, and Practice-responsibility (TERCAP) tool, which delineates the circumstances surrounding errors occurring during clinical practice. Results: Among the participants employed in the pediatric department, 80.8% (n = 84) reported experiencing an error at their workplace. Notably, in 48.7% (n = 38) of these instances, the error was attributed to themselves (personal responsibility), while in 78.9% (n = 56) of cases, it was linked to errors committed by other colleagues in the clinic. As reported by participants in pediatric departments, the primary factors contributing to potential error occurrence include the absence or inadequacy of orientation and training for new staff (43.2%), the absence of a standardized protocol for resolving disagreements (39%), insufficient ongoing training (38.3%), and breakdowns in interdisciplinary communication (21%). Conclusions: By classifying errors based on various criteria such as outcomes, processes, cognitive reasoning, ethical considerations, and importance, this study presents a holistic framework for examining pediatric nurses' errors from diverse perspectives. Through this classification approach, the study establishes a foundation for tailored interventions targeting particular aspects of errors and their root causes in pediatric departments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nursing errors significantly impact patient safety and care quality, necessitating effective error recognition and analysis techniques. The Taxonomy of Error, Root Cause Analysis, and Practice-Responsibility (TERCAP) tool aims to systematically classify and address nursing errors, though its application and usefulness remain uncertain. This systematic review provides an overview of nursing errors using the TERCAP instrument, evaluating its applicability, strengths, and opportunities for improvement. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across databases such as PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus to identify studies employing the TERCAP tool for nursing error analysis. Inclusion criteria encompassed peer-reviewed articles, studies with quantitative or qualitative data, and English-language publications. Data were extracted and analyzed to assess the tool's validity, reliability, impact on patient outcomes, and integration into clinical practice. The review identified a limited number of studies utilizing the TERCAP instrument, indicating its early stage of implementation. Findings suggest that the TERCAP tool provides a structured approach to error categorization and root cause analysis, potentially benefiting patient safety. However, challenges such as inconsistency in tool use, integration issues with electronic health records, and the need for further validation were noted. Additionally, nurses' perceptions of the tool and training needs emerged as crucial factors influencing its effectiveness. The TERCAP tool shows promise in improving nursing error reporting and analysis. Nonetheless, further research is essential to confirm its reliability, optimize its integration into clinical workflows, and understand its long-term impact on patient outcomes and safety culture. Addressing these gaps will be crucial in harnessing the TERCAP tool's full potential to reduce nursing errors and enhance healthcare quality., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Pappa et al.)