Skip to main content
Log in

Using an Anesthesia Information Management System to Prove a Deficit in Voluntary Reporting of Adverse Events in a Quality Assurance Program

  • Published:
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective.A deficit is suspected in the manual documentation ofadverse events in quality assurance programs in anesthesiology. In order toverify and quantify this, we retrospectively compared the incidence ofmanually recorded perioperative adverse events with automatically detectedevents. Methods.In 1998, data of all anesthetic procedures, includingthe data set for quality assurance of the German Society of Anaesthesiologyand Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI), was recorded online with the AnesthesiaInformation Management System (AIMS) NarkoData4® (Imeso GmbH). SQL(Structured Query Language) queries based on medical data were defined for theautomatic detection of common adverse events. The definition of the SQLstatements had to be in accordance with the definition of the DGAI forperioperative adverse events: A potentially harmful change of parameters ledto therapeutic interventions by an anesthesiologist. Results.During16,019 surgical procedures, anesthesiologists recorded 911 (5.7%) adverseevents manually, whereas 2966 (18.7%) events from the same database weredetected automatically. With the exception of hypoxemia, the incidence ofautomatically detected events was considerably higher than that of manuallyrecorded events. Fourteen and a half percent (435) of all automaticallydetected events were recorded manually. Conclusion.Using automaticdetection, we were able to prove a considerable deficit in the documentationof adverse events according to the guidelines of the German quality assuranceprogram in anesthesiology. Based on the data from manual recording, theresults of the quality assurance of our department match those of othercomparable German departments. Thus, we are of the opinion that manualincident reporting seriously underestimates the true occurrence rate ofincidents. This brings into question the validity of quality assurancecomparisons based on manually recorded data.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. DGAI-Kommission. Qualitä tssicherung und Datenverarbeitung in der Anä sthesie. Kerndatensatz Qualitä ts-sicherung in der Anä sthesie. Anä sth Intensivmed 1993; 34: 331-335

    Google Scholar 

  2. Junger A, Veit Ch, Klö ss Th. Erfahrungsbericht ü ber vier Jahre externe Qualitä tssicherung in der Anä sthesiologie in Hamburg. Anä sthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther 1998; 33: 417-424

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Heinrichs W, Baldering H-J, Kö hler A. Externe Qualitä tssicherung in der Anä sthesie. Anä sthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther 1997; 32: 361-364

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Junger A, Veit Ch, Klö ss Th. KontinuierlicheVerbesserung in der anä sthesiologischen Qualitä tsdokumentation. Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther 1998; 33: 715-721

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Jakob A, Lindner L, Lips U, Altmayer S et al. Qualitäts-sicherung in der Anä sthesiologie: Notwendiges Uë bel oder Weg zur Existenzsicherung? Anä sth Intensivmed 1996; 37: 540-547

    Google Scholar 

  6. Sachs L. Angewandte Statistik. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag 1997.

  7. Sanborn KV, Castro J, Kuroda M et al. Detection of intraoperative incidents by electronic scanning of computerized anesthesia records. Comparison with voluntary reporting. Anesthesiology 1996; 85: 977-87

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Classen DC, Pestotnik SL, Evans RS, Burke JP. Description of a computerized adverse drug event monitor using a hospital information system. Hosp Pharm 1992; 27: 774, 776-779, 783

    Google Scholar 

  9. Classen DC, Pestotnik SL, Evans RS, Lloyd JF, Burke JP. Adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. Excess length of stay, extra costs, and attributable mortality (see comments). JAMA 1997; 277: 301-306

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Evans RS, Classen DC, Stevens LE, Pestotnik SL, Gardner RM, Lloyd JF et al. Using a hospital information system to assess the e¡ects of adverse drug events. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care 1993; 161-165

  11. Smith N, Gravenstein J. Manual and automated anesthesia information management systems. In: Saidman L, Smith N (eds):Monitoring in anesthesia. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1993: 457-474

    Google Scholar 

  12. Junger A, Benson M, Quinzio L et al. Qualitä tsdokumentation mit einem Anä sthesie-Informations-Management-System (AIMS). Anaesthesist 1999; 48: 523-532

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Cooper JB, Cullen DJ, Nemeskal R et al. E¡ects of information feedback and pulse oximetry on the incidence of anesthesia complications. Anesthesiology 1987; 67: 686-694

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Cohen MM, Duncan PG, Pope WD et al. A survey of 112,000 anaesthetics at one teaching hospital (1975–1983). Can Anaesth Soc J 1986; 33: 22-31

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Katz RI, Lagasse RS. Factors influencing the reporting of adverse perioperative outcomes to a quality manage-ment program. Anesth Analg 2000; 90: 344-334

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Benson, M., Junger, A., Fuchs, C. et al. Using an Anesthesia Information Management System to Prove a Deficit in Voluntary Reporting of Adverse Events in a Quality Assurance Program. J Clin Monit Comput 16, 211–217 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009977917319

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009977917319

Navigation