2021
DOI: 10.1177/0310057x211060846
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A cross-sectional overview of the second 4000 incidents reported to webAIRS, a de-identified web-based anaesthesia incident reporting system in Australia and New Zealand

Abstract: This cross-sectional overview of the second 4000 incidents reported to webAIRS has findings that are very similar to the previous overview of the first 4000 incidents. The distribution of patient age, body mass index and American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status was similar, as was anaesthetist gender, grade, location and time of day of incidents. About 35% of incidents occurred during non-elective procedures (vs. 33% in the first 4000 incidents). The proportion of incidents in the various main cat… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

3
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The ethics approval process for the webAIRS data collection methodology has previously been published. 14 It is briefly repeated here: webAIRS data collection complies with the current ethics requirements for the collection of de-identified quality assurance data in Australia, as outlined by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). 15 In order to ensure data collection meets the NHMRC requirements ethics approval was been sought and obtained from two hospitals in Australia: Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/11/QRBW/311) and Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District (HREC/12/NEPEAN/18).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The ethics approval process for the webAIRS data collection methodology has previously been published. 14 It is briefly repeated here: webAIRS data collection complies with the current ethics requirements for the collection of de-identified quality assurance data in Australia, as outlined by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). 15 In order to ensure data collection meets the NHMRC requirements ethics approval was been sought and obtained from two hospitals in Australia: Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/11/QRBW/311) and Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District (HREC/12/NEPEAN/18).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Incidents have been entered into the database since September 2009 and some data we are presenting have been previously analysed and published. 3 , 4 Data relating to clinical incidents are entered into the database, with no identifying clinician or patient details. Incidents range from difficult cases, near misses and workload issues, to significant clinical incidents with patient harm or death.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The reports are confidential and protected by qualified privilege in both Australia and New Zealand. 6 Incidents affecting paediatric patients less than 17 years of age were extracted from the first 8000 reports to webAIRS. Additionally, incidents which did not directly categorise by patient age were scanned and added to the analysis if the written narrative described an age which fitted the inclusion criteria of less than 17 years.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An overview of the first and second 4000 incidents was published in 2017 and 2021, respectively, and de-identified data collection methods were described in detail. 5 , 6 Data are collected in compliance with the National Health and Medical Research Council 2014 recommendations for de-identified quality assurance data. In addition, multi-centre ethics approval is maintained by the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/11/QRBW/311) and the Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District (HREC/12/NEPEAN/18).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%