Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from BMC Emergency Medicine and BioMed Central.

Open Access Highly Accessed Research article

Reporting of unintended events in an intensive care unit: comparison between staff and observer

Maurizia Capuzzo*, Imad Nawfal, Matilde Campi, Vanna Valpondi, Marco Verri and Raffaele Alvisi

Author Affiliations

Department of Surgical, Anaesthetic and Radiological Sciences, Section of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, University Hospital of Ferrara, Corso Giovecca 203 44100 Ferrara, Italy

For all author emails, please log on.

BMC Emergency Medicine 2005, 5:3  doi:10.1186/1471-227X-5-3

Published: 27 May 2005

Abstract

Background

In order to identify relevant targets for change, it is essential to know the reliability of incident staff reporting. The aim of this study is to compare the incidence and type of unintended events (UE) reported by facilitated Intensive Care Unit (ICU) staff with those recorded concurrently by an observer.

Methods

The study is a prospective data collection performed in two 4-bed multidisciplinary ICUs of a teaching hospital. The format of the UE reporting system was voluntary, facilitated and not necessarily anonymous, and used a structured form with a predetermined list of items. UEs were reported by ICU staff over a period of 4 weeks. The reporting incidence during the first fourteen days was compared with that during the second fourteen. During morning shifts in the second fourteen days, one observer in each ICU recorded any UE seen. The staff was not aware of the observers' study. The incidence of UEs reported by staff was compared with that recorded by the observers.

Results

The staff reported 36 UEs in the first fourteen days and 31 in the second.. The incidence of UE detection during morning shifts was significantly higher than during afternoon or night shifts (p < 0.001). Considering only working day morning shifts, the rate of UE reporting by the staff per 100 patient days was 26.9 (CI 95% 16.9–37.0) in the first fourteen day period and 20.3 (CI 95% 10.3–30.4) in the second. The rate of UE detection by the observers was 53.1 per 100 patient days (CI 95% 40.6–65.6), significantly higher (p < 0.001) than that reported concurrently by the staff. There was excellent agreement between staff and observers about the severity of the UEs recorded (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient 0.869). The observers recorded mainly UEs involving Airway/mechanical ventilation and Patient management, and the staff Catheter/Drain/Probe and Medication errors (p = 0.025).

Conclusion

UE incidence is strongly underreported by staff in comparison with observers. Also the types of UEs reported are different. Invaluable information about incidents in ICU can be obtained in a few days by observer monitoring.