Skip to main content
Log in

Gedanken zur Fehler- und Sicherheitskultur in deutschen Notaufnahmen

Thoughts on the error and safety culture in German emergency departments

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Notfall + Rettungsmedizin Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Eine Patientin wird bei vasovagaler Synkope mit Sturz auf den Kopf in eine chirurgische Notaufnahme eingewiesen und nach kurzer Abklärung zunächst in die ambulante Weiterbehandlung entlassen. Wenige Tage später verstirbt sie auf der Intensivstation an einem Toxic-Shock-Syndrom. Nach einer systematischen Literaturrecherche wird an diesem Fallbeispiel die Thematik „medizinischer Fehler“ im Kontext der deutschen Notaufnahmestrukturen diskutiert, die momentan meist dezentral organisiert sind. Nachfolgend werden die theoretischen Grundlagen von Fehlern im Allgemeinen sowohl anhand der Arbeiten von James Reason als auch in Bezug auf das Fallbeispiel dargestellt. Wir plädieren für einen Wandel hin zu einer systematischen Fehlerkultur, in der nicht allein die persönliche Verantwortlichkeit des Handelnden am Ende der Handlungskette im Vordergrund steht, sondern Fehler in der Notaufnahme durch systematische Aufarbeitung der zugrundeliegenden Mechanismen vermieden werden. Dabei wäre es nützlich, wenn Maßnahmenbündel aus verschiedenen qualitätsrelevanten Bereichen (Qualitätsmessung, Prozessstruktur, Arbeitskultur) in der Notaufnahme eingeführt würden. Abschließend werden ausgewählte Elemente dieser Maßnahmen in der Arbeit diskutiert.

Abstract

A female patient with vasovagal syncope was admitted to a trauma unit. After short evaluation, the patient was discharged to outpatient care and was readmitted to the ICU a few days later. Shortly after ICU admission, she died due to toxic shock syndrome. This example in the context of a review of the literature is used to illustrate the importance of medical errors in German emergency departments, which are currently not managed in a central unit. Subsequently, with the help of James Reason’s theories on error, this paper describes the theoretic background of errors and correlates them to the case example. We plead for a change to a systematic safety culture in which errors are not seen as individual failures but as endpoints of subsequent events where systematic workup of underlying mechanisms can improve patient safety. We suggest the implementation of“intervention bundles” that contain elements of different quality categories: measuring quality, structuring processes and improving work culture. Finally, this work discusses examples of these elements with their advantages and disadvantages and the aim to transform emergency medical care in Germany to a systematic error and safety culture.

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.

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4

Literatur

  1. Battles JB, Kaplan HS, Van Der Schaaf TW et al (1998) The attributes of medical event-reporting systems: experience with a prototype medical event-reporting system for transfusion medicine. Arch Pathol Lab Med 122:231–238

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Dormann H, Diesch K, Ganslandt T et al (2010) Kennzahlen und Qualitätsindikatoren einer medizinischen Notaufnahme. Dtsch Arztebl 107:261–267

    Google Scholar 

  3. Enke N (2009) Schnittstellen in der Notfallversorgung: Eine problemorientierte Systemanalyse. Diplomica-Verlag, Hamburg, S 23–37

  4. Fan J-S, Kao W-F, Yen Dh-T et al (2007) Risk factors and prognostic predictors of unexpected intensive care unit admission within 3 days after ED discharge. Am J Emerg Med 25:1009–1014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Francis RCE, Spies CD, Kerner T (2008) Quality management and benchmarking in emergency medicine. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 21:233–239

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gabayan GZ, Derose SF, Asch SM et al (2010) Predictors of short-term (seven-day) cardiac outcomes after emergency department visit for syncope. Am J Cardiol 105:82–86

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Goldmann D (2006) System failure versus personal accountability–the case for clean hands. N Engl J Med 355:121–123

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Grossman SA, Fischer C, Bar Jl et al (2007) The yield of head CT in syncope: a pilot study. Intern Emerg Med 2:46–49

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hales BM, Pronovost PJ (2006) The checklist – a tool for error management and performance improvement. J Crit Care 21:231–235

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hatler CW, Mast D, Corderella J et al (2006) Using evidence and process improvement strategies to enhance healthcare outcomes for the critically ill: a pilot project. Am J Crit Care 15:549–555

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kohn LT (2000) To err is human: Building a safer health system. In: National Acad. Press, Washington, DC, S 26–48

  12. Lau C, Cartmill T, Leveaux V (1996) Managing and understanding variances in clinical path methodology: a case study. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 16:109–117

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Meissner W, Mescha S, Rothaug J et al (2008) Quality improvement in postoperative pain management: results from the QUIPS project. Dtsch Arztebl Int 105:865–870

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mendelow AD, Timothy J, Steers JW et al (2008) Management of patients with head injury. Lancet 372:685–687

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Moya A, Sutton R, Ammirati F et al (2009) Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of syncope (version 2009): the Task Force for the Diagnosis and Management of Syncope of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 30:2631–2671

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Perrow C (1999) Normal accidents: Living with high-risk technologies; with a new afterword and a postscript on the Y2 K problem. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, S 62–101

  17. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (2000) 20 Tips To Help Prevent Medical Errors: Patient Fact Sheet: AHRQ Publication No. 00-PO38. In: AHRQ Publications Clearinghouse, 2101 East Jefferson Street, Rockville, MD 20852

  18. Quinn J, Mcdermott D, Stiell I et al (2006) Prospective validation of the San Francisco Syncope Rule to predict patients with serious outcomes. Ann Emerg Med 47:448–454

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Reason J (2000) Human error: models and management. BMJ 320:768–770

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Reason J (1995) Understanding adverse events: human factors. Qual Health Care 4:80–89

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Robert M, Wachter MD (2009) Balancing „No Blame“ with Accountability in Patient Safety. N Engl J Med 14:1401–1406

    Google Scholar 

  22. Sachverständigenrat (2007) Kooperation und Verantwortung: Voraussetzungen einer zielorientierten Gesundheitsversorgung. Deutscher Bundestag. Drucksache 16/6339

  23. Schiff GD, Hasan O, Kim S et al (2009) Diagnostic error in medicine: analysis of 583 physician-reported errors. Arch Intern Med 169:1881–1887

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sheldon R, Rose S, Connolly S et al (2006) Diagnostic criteria for vasovagal syncope based on a quantitative history. Eur Heart J 27:344–350

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sklar DP, Crandall CS, Loeliger E et al (2007) Unanticipated death after discharge home from the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 49:735–745

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sonnenberg A, Gogel HK (2002) Translating vague complaints into precise symptoms: the implications of a poor medical history. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 14:317–321

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Staender S (2001) Incident reporting as a tool for error analysis in medicine. Zeitschrift für ärztliche Fortbildung und Qualitätssicherung 95:479–484

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Swensen SJ, Meyer GS, Nelson EC et al (2010) Cottage industry to postindustrial care – the revolution in health care delivery. N Engl J Med 362:e12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Thomas EJ, Petersen LA (2003) Measuring errors and adverse events in health care. J Gen Intern Med 18:61–67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Thomas M, Mackway-Jones K (2008) Incidence and causes of critical incidents in emergency departments: a comparison and root cause analysis. Emerg Med J 25:346–350

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Christ.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Güldner, S., Mang, H., Popp, S. et al. Gedanken zur Fehler- und Sicherheitskultur in deutschen Notaufnahmen. Notfall Rettungsmed 14, 351–360 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10049-011-1439-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10049-011-1439-7

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation