ANZ journal of surgery · 2022
Tube thoracostomy for trauma at Counties Manukau District Health Board, Aotearoa New Zealand.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Scott Jennifer, Coomarasamy Christin, Henshall Kevin, MacCormick Andrew D
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Tube thoracostomy (TT) in trauma is lifesaving. A previous audit at Counties Manukau District Health Board (CMDHB), New Zealand, showed a 22% complication rate for trauma TT. Subsequently CMDHB introduced a procedural guideline to reduce complications. The Health and Disability Commission published a report concerning oversights in TT removal. This led us to evaluate complications, documentation and procedural monitoring to identify ways to improve patient safety.
METHOD: A 30-month retrospective audit of patients presenting to CMDHB, with injuries which may require TT. Those who had a TT in situ, did not require a TT or whose presentation was not secondary to trauma were excluded.
RESULTS: One hundred and forty-three TTs were performed in one hundred and fifteen patients. About 87% had injuries secondary to blunt mechanism. Penetrating injuries were more likely to require TT (P = 0.015). Non-accidental injuries were more likely to need TT (P = 0.025). The complication rate was 25.2%. TT prior to imaging had a 31% complication rate (P < 0.03). About 23% had no TT insertion note. 40% had no TT removal note. About 9% TT insertions had no tertiary information to identify the proceduralist and a complication rate of 46%. About 22% of insertions and 4% of removals documented consent. About 2% of insertions documented anticoagulation status. Interventional radiology had the best documentation of data points assessed (P < 0.0001). Post-procedural monitoring recommendations were documented in 1% insertions and 11% removals.
CONCLUSIONS: The complication rate has not reduced despite introduction of a guideline. Procedural documentation and monitoring were inadequate, potentially impacting patient safety.
METHOD: A 30-month retrospective audit of patients presenting to CMDHB, with injuries which may require TT. Those who had a TT in situ, did not require a TT or whose presentation was not secondary to trauma were excluded.
RESULTS: One hundred and forty-three TTs were performed in one hundred and fifteen patients. About 87% had injuries secondary to blunt mechanism. Penetrating injuries were more likely to require TT (P = 0.015). Non-accidental injuries were more likely to need TT (P = 0.025). The complication rate was 25.2%. TT prior to imaging had a 31% complication rate (P < 0.03). About 23% had no TT insertion note. 40% had no TT removal note. About 9% TT insertions had no tertiary information to identify the proceduralist and a complication rate of 46%. About 22% of insertions and 4% of removals documented consent. About 2% of insertions documented anticoagulation status. Interventional radiology had the best documentation of data points assessed (P < 0.0001). Post-procedural monitoring recommendations were documented in 1% insertions and 11% removals.
CONCLUSIONS: The complication rate has not reduced despite introduction of a guideline. Procedural documentation and monitoring were inadequate, potentially impacting patient safety.