PubMed · 16627335
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
R M Harden. 2006. Do you know?. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590600568470
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the reporting of critical incidents by anaesthetic trainees using personal digital assistants. The project also identified the reporting of 'near miss' incidents by anaesthetic trainees. DESIGN: Comparison of electronic incident reporting with retrospective case note review of cases in which no incident was reported. SETTING: A 400-bed university teaching hospital in Victoria. PARTICIPANTS: Fourteen accredited Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) registrars and their training supervisors. INTERVENTIONS: Registrars and supervisors underwent initial training for 1 hour and were provided with ongoing support. The cases and incidents reported to the database using the portable digital assistants were analysed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: These were the total number of anaesthetics reported to the database; the number of incidents reported to the database; the outcome severity of incidents reported; and the number of incidents detected in the case note review that were not reported to the database. RESULTS: An incident was reported for 156 (3.5%) of 4441 anaesthetic procedures reported to the database. Of these incidents, 72 (46.2%) were 'near misses'. One incident was identified in a review of 208 case notes, which had no incidents reported electronically, and was not reported to the database electronically. This gives a reporting rate of 99.52% [95% confidence interval (CI) 96.9-100%]. CONCLUSIONS: ANZCA trainees in routine anaesthetic practice can reliably use mobile computing technology to report critical incidents and 'near miss' incident data.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyse the current practice of postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis among anaesthetists, nurse anaesthetist and general surgeons in Togo. METHOD: A total of 160 questionnaires were distributed to anaesthetists and surgeons with varying subspeciality interests. RESULTS: One hundred and three (64%) (3 anaesthetists, 51 nurse anaesthetists and 49 surgeons) returned the questionnaire. Of these, 16% thought that VTE was as common in Togo as in the western countries. Selective VTE prophylaxis was used by 78% of the prescriptors. In order of frequency, indications for selective VTE prophylaxis were obesity, increased risk of VTE related to surgery and past medical history of VTE. Orthopaedic surgery, caesarean section and vascular surgery were most frequently considered as high-risk surgery for VTE event. When prophylaxis was indicated, low molecular weight heparin was prescribed by 87% of prescriptors. In most cases, VTE prophylaxis duration was less than a week. In 92% of institutions, there was no written protocol for VTE prophylaxis. VTE-related morbidity was reported by 34% of the prescriptors over the past year, and 30% of these cases were fatal; 60% of the prescriptors observed these complications one week after the surgery. CONCLUSION: The practice of VTE prophylaxis in Togo is not sufficient. It is necessary to promote the training of practitioners, particularly of physicians.