Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Process-Oriented Risk Analysis (PORA) in Academic Surgical Departments in Germany

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Risk assessment in operative medicine is a key aspect for patient safety. The aim of this paper is to outline the degree of dissemination of a standardized procedure for risk analysis, process-oriented risk analysis, at German university hospitals.

Process-oriented risk analysis represents a standardized procedure for the analysis of adverse events within the framework of clinical risk management. In this study, 262 full professors of German university hospitals were surveyed in November 2020 regarding the use of this instrument.

The response rate was 17%. The analysis showed that 29% of the respondents already introduced the process-oriented risk analysis in their department. Further, 97% of the respondents were willing to standardize clinical processes with regard to patient safety. Moreover, 95% of the respondents said that a risk analysis and the resulting implementation of new procedural measures were important.

It could be shown that the readiness for the procedural consideration of clinical processes with regard to patient safety is 92%. Currently, there is a lack of scientific evidence on the effectiveness and efficiency of the process-oriented risk analysis which is why further studies are needed to achieve a comprehensive understanding of this tool.

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. Sendlhofer G et al (2015) Implementation of a surgical safety checklist: interventions to optimize the process and hints to increase compliance. PLoS ONE 10(2):e0116926

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Meara JG et al (2015) Global Surgery 2030: evidence and solutions for achieving health, welfare, and economic development. The Lancet 386(9993):569–624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Radtke, R. Vollstationäre Operationen und Behandlungsmaßnahmen in Krankenhäusern in Deutschland im Zeitraum 2005 bis 2020. 2021 [cited 2022 11.01.2022]; Available from: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/76889/umfrage/operationen-und-behandlungsmassnahmen-in-deutschen-krankenhaeusern/#professional.

  4. Kable AK, Gibberd RW, Spigelman AD (2002) Adverse events in surgical patients in Australia. Int J Qual Health Care 14(4):269–276

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gawande AA et al (1999) The incidence and nature of surgical adverse events in Colorado and Utah in 1992. Surgery 126(1):66–75

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Borchard A et al (2012) A systematic review of the effectiveness, compliance, and critical factors for implementation of safety checklists in surgery. Ann Surg 256(6):925–933

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. de Vries EN et al (2010) Effect of a comprehensive surgical safety system on patient outcomes. N Engl J Med 363(20):1928–1937

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sewell M et al (2011) Use of the WHO surgical safety checklist in trauma and orthopaedic patients. Int Orthop 35:897–901

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jaklin J (2017) Konsequenzen aus steigenden Schadenssummen und Versicherungsprämien. Gynakologe 50(5):368–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hayes C (2012) Surgical safety checklist: improved patient safety through effective teamwork. Healthc Q 15:57–62

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Zinn W, Schaar R (2013) Der andere Blick - Klinisches Risikomanagement aus Sicht des Patienten. Das Krankenhaus 105(10):1021–1025

    Google Scholar 

  12. Semmler S (2018) Morbiditäts- und Mortalitätskonferenzen. Herz 43(6):498–505

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Orlander JD, Barber TW, Fincke BG (2002) The morbidity and mortality conference: the delicate nature of learning from error. Acad Med 77(10):1001–1006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Fudickar A et al (2012) The effect of the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist on complication rate and communication. Dtsch Arztebl Int 109(42):695

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Neuhaus C et al (2020) Erkenntnisse aus 10 Jahren CIRS-AINS. Anaesthesist 69(11):793–802

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Cartes MI (2012) Prozessorientierte Risikoanalyse (PORA). Das Krankenhaus 6:585–590

    Google Scholar 

  17. Damschroder LJ et al (2009) Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci 4(1):1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bortz, J. and N. Döring, Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation für Human-und Sozialwissenschaftler: Limitierte Sonderausgabe. 2007: Springer-Verlag.

  19. Lützeler, R., et al., Verbesserung der Ausfüllqualität der OP-Sicherheits-Checkliste durch inhaltliche und strukturelle Optimierung sowie compliancefördernde Maßnahmen. Zentralbl Chir, 2020(EFirst): p. 58–67.

  20. Cartes MI, Lützeler R (2014) Risikomanagement und Fehlermeldesysteme ganzheitlich gestalten und betreiben. Das Krankenhaus 8:718–722

    Google Scholar 

  21. Greenhalgh T et al (2004) Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q 82(4):581–629

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, University Witten Herdecke, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, 51109, Cologne, Germany

    Robert Lützeler

  2. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Rechts Der Isar, Technical University Munich, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany

    Robert Lützeler, Angelika Werner, Verena Neuner & Sarah Sophie Plank

Authors
  1. Robert Lützeler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Angelika Werner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Verena Neuner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sarah Sophie Plank
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert Lützeler.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

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

Lützeler, R., Werner, A., Neuner, V. et al. Process-Oriented Risk Analysis (PORA) in Academic Surgical Departments in Germany. Indian J Surg 85, 365–370 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-022-03451-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-022-03451-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation