Title |
Safety incidents in airway and mechanical ventilation in Spanish ICUs: The IVeMVA study
|
---|---|
Published in |
Journal of Critical Care, July 2018
|
DOI | 10.1016/j.jcrc.2018.07.012 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Ángela Alonso-Ovies, Nicolás Nin, Maria Cruz Martín, Federico Gordo, Paz Merino, José M. Añón, Blanca Obón, Mónica Magret, Isabel Gutiérrez, IVeMVA study investigators |
Abstract |
To assess incidence, related factors and characteristics of safety incidents associated with the whole process of airway management and mechanical ventilation (MV) in Spanish ICUs. Observational, prospective, 7 days cross-sectional multicenter study. Airway and MV related incidents were reported using structured questionnaire. Type, characteristics, severity, avoidability and contributing factors of the incidents were assessed. Participant ICUs: 104. Inclusion of 1267 patients; 745 (59%) suffered one or more incidents. Incidents reported: 2492 (59% non-harm-events, 41% adverse events). Individual risk of suffering at least one incident: 66.6%. Incidence ratio (median) of incidents: 2 per 100 patient-hours. 73.7% of incidents were related to MV process, 9.5% to tracheostomy, 6.2% to non-invasive MV, 5.4% to weaning/extubation, 4.4% to intubation and 0.8% to prone position. Temporary damage was produced in 12% incidents, while 0.8% was related to permanent injuries, risk to the patient's life or contributed to death. Incidents were considered avoidable in 73.5% of cases. 98% of all incidents had 1 or more contributing factors. MV is a risk process in critical patients. Although most incidents did not harm patients, some caused damage and a few were related to the patient's death or permanent damage. Preventability is high. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Spain | 13 | 35% |
Argentina | 3 | 8% |
Colombia | 2 | 5% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
Uruguay | 1 | 3% |
Peru | 1 | 3% |
Chile | 1 | 3% |
Unknown | 15 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 31 | 84% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 11% |
Scientists | 1 | 3% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 73 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 14 | 19% |
Other | 9 | 12% |
Student > Bachelor | 7 | 10% |
Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 5% |
Librarian | 4 | 5% |
Other | 18 | 25% |
Unknown | 17 | 23% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 40% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 26% |
Unspecified | 2 | 3% |
Social Sciences | 2 | 3% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 1% |
Other | 3 | 4% |
Unknown | 17 | 23% |