Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Barriers to reporting near misses and adverse events among professionals performing laparoscopic surgeries: a mixed methodology approach

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The literature has investigated barriers to reporting adverse events in surgery, but with less emphasis on near misses. No attempt was made to categorise near misses by type and reportability. This paper attempts to fill these two gaps in the literature.

Methods

A mixed methodology approach was adopted. A sample of 16 laparoscopic surgeries were observed followed by a questionnaire distributed among professionals dealing with laparoscopies. Non-parametric tests and mediation–moderation analysis were used to compare responses and identify causal factors.

Results

A total of 469 near misses were observed, and classified into two categories: reportable events and common events. Among 23 observed reportable events, only 9 events were reported. Out of 300 distributed questionnaires, we received 178 valid responses (response rate 59%). The professionals strongly disagreed that reporting near misses (Mean 4.09, STD 0.95) and adverse events (4.17, 1.02) makes little contribution to the quality of surgery. However, the results show that professionals were more willing to disclose adverse events than near misses, Heavy workload, privacy, lack of support, and fear from disciplinary actions negatively affected professionals’ willingness to report near misses.

Discussion

Error reporting should aim to promote safety, knowledge sharing and education. It is important to differentiate near misses that should be reported from voluntary reported events. Hospital’s management might award professionals who frequently report errors and provide solutions, Quality rather than quantity of reports should be emphasised with flexibility in the way near misses are reported.

Conclusion

The outcome of this study has benefits of understanding the attitudes of surgical professionals towards error reporting. It provides healthcare management with tool for enhancing safety and providing suitable training for their professionals.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS (2000) To err is human: building a safer health system. A report of the Committee on Quality of Health Care in America, Institute of Medicine. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  2. Francis N, Curtis N, Conti J, Foster J, Bonjer H, Hanna G (2018) EAES classification of intraoperative adverse events in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 32:3822–3829

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Abe T, Murai S, Nasuhara Y, Shinohara N (2019) Characteristics of Medical Adverse Events/Near Misses Associated With Laparoscopic/Thoracoscopic Surgery: A Retrospective Study Based on the Japanese National Database of Medical Adverse Events. J Patient Saf 15:343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bosma E, Veen E, Roukema J (2011) Incidence, nature and impact of error in surgery. Br J Surg 98:1654–1659

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Soydemir D, Seren Intepeler S, Mert H (2017) Barriers to medical error reporting for physicians and nurses. West J Nurs Res 39:1348–1363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Uribe CL, Schweikhart SB, Pathak DS, Marsh GB, Fraley RR (2002) Perceived barriers to medical-error reporting: an exploratory investigation. J Healthc Manag 47:263

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gawande AA, Thomas EJ, Zinner MJ, Brennan TA (1999) The incidence and nature of surgical adverse events in Colorado and Utah in 1992. Surgery 126:66–75

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Eva K, Regher G (2000) An organisation with a memory: report of an expert group on learning from adverse events in the NHS. Department of Health, Norwich, UK

    Google Scholar 

  9. Tang FI, Sheu SJ, Yu S, Wei IL, Chen CH (2007) Nurses relate the contributing factors involved in medication errors. J Clin Nurs 16:447–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. White A, Skelton M, Mushtaq F, Pike T, Mon-Williams M, Lodge J, Wilkie R (2015) Inconsistent reporting of minimally invasive surgery errors. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 97:608–612

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Heard GC, Sanderson PM, Thomas RD (2012) Barriers to adverse event and error reporting in anesthesia. Anesth Analg 114:604–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Shanafelt TD, Balch CM, Bechamps G, Russell T, Dyrbye L, Satele D, Collicott P, Novotny PJ, Sloan J, Freischlag J (2010) Burnout and medical errors among American surgeons. Ann Surg 251:995–1000

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Al-Hakim L, Wang M, Xiao J, Gyomber D, Sengupta S (2019) Hierarchical task analysis for identification of interrelationships between ergonomic, external disruption, and internal disruption in complex laparoscopic procedures. Surg Endosc 33:3673–3687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bonrath E, Zevin B, Dedy N, Grantcharov T (2013) Error rating tool to identify and analyse technical errors and events in laparoscopic surgery. Br J Surg 100:1080–1088

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Howell A-M, Burns EM, Hull L, Mayer E, Sevdalis N, Darzi A (2017) International recommendations for national patient safety incident reporting systems: an expert Delphi consensus-building process. BMJ Qual Saf 26:150–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Weissman JS, Rothschild JM, Bendavid E, Sprivulis P, Cook EF, Evans RS, Kaganova Y, Bender M, David-Kasdan J, Haug P (2007) Hospital workload and adverse events. Med Care 45:448–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ro H (2012) Moderator and mediator effects in hospitality research. Int J Hosp Manag 31:952–961

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Satava R (2005) The nature of surgical error: a cautionary tale and a call to reason. Surg Endosc 19:1014–1016

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Cuschieri A (2005) Reducing errors in the operating room: surgical proficiency and quality assurance of execution. Surg Endosc 19:1022–1027

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Rosner B, Glynn RJ, Lee MLT (2006) The Wilcoxon signed rank test for paired comparisons of clustered data. Biometrics 62:185–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Baron RM, Kenny DA (1986) The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol 51:1173

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Hayes AF (2017) Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. Guilford Publications, New York

    Google Scholar 

  23. Bonrath EM, Gordon LE, Grantcharov TP (2015) Characterising ‘near miss’ events in complex laparoscopic surgery through video analysis. BMJ Qual Saf 24:516–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Gallagher TH, Waterman AD, Ebers AG, Fraser VJ, Levinson W (2003) Patients’ and physicians’ attitudes regarding the disclosure of medical errors. JAMA 289:1001–1007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Frenkel DN, Liebman CB (2004) Words that heal. Ann Intern Med 140:482–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Eadie A (2012) Medical error reporting should it be mandatory in Scotland? J Forensic Leg Med 19:437–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Weissman JS, Annas CL, Epstein AM, Schneider EC, Clarridge B, Kirle L, Gatsonis C, Feibelmann S, Ridley N (2005) Error reporting and disclosure systems: views from hospital leaders. JAMA 293:1359–1366

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. WHO (2005) World alliance for patient safety: WHO draft guidelines for adverse event reporting and learning systems: from information to action. World Health Organization

  29. Donn SM, McDonnell WM (2012) When bad things happen: adverse event reporting and disclosure as patient safety and risk management tools in the neonatal intensive care unit. Am J Perinatol 29:65–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Al-Hakim L, Sengupta S, Xiao J (2017) Ergonomics perspective for identifying and reducing internal operative flow disruption for laparoscopic urological surgery. Surg Endosc 31:5043–5056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Wiegmann DA, ElBardissi AW, Dearani JA, Daly RC, Sundt TM (2007) Disruptions in surgical flow and their relationship to surgical errors: An exploratory investigation. Surgery 142:658–665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Etchells E, O’Neill C, Bernstein M (2003) Patient safety in surgery: error detection and prevention. World J Surg 27:936–941

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Cannon MD, Edmondson AC (2005) Failing to learn and learning to fail (intelligently): how great organizations put failure to work to innovate and improve. Long Range Plan 38:299–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hemingway MW, O’Malley C, Silvestri S (2015) Safety culture and care: a program to prevent surgical errors. AORN J 101:404–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Vincent C, Moorthy K, Sarker S, Chang A, Darzi A (2004) Systems approaches to surgical Quality and safety: from concept to measurement. Ann Surg 239:475–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the support of Professor Jian’an Wang, President of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University Medical School (SAHZU), Hangzhou, China, Professor Jiaquan Xiao, Director of the Urology Department, Dr Kai Sun, Department of Anesthesiology, Ms Mingli Yang, Director of Foreign Affair at SAHZU, and Ms Desleigh de Jonge, Research Fellow at the School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland. Our acknowledgement and appreciation extended to all professionals who involved in the observational study and responded to our questionnaires.

Funding

No funding was received.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anesthesiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China

    Min Yan

  2. Department of Urology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China

    Ming Wang

  3. School of Management and Enterprise, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD, Australia

    Latif Al-Hakim

Authors
  1. Min Yan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ming Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Latif Al-Hakim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Latif Al-Hakim.

Ethics declarations

Disclosure

Drs Yan, Wang, and Al-Hakim have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yan, M., Wang, M. & Al-Hakim, L. Barriers to reporting near misses and adverse events among professionals performing laparoscopic surgeries: a mixed methodology approach. Surg Endosc 35, 7015–7026 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-08215-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-08215-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation