Cited by 52Patient Safety and Medication ErrorsMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesHospital Admissions and Outcomes

Communication failures contributing to patient injury in anaesthesia malpractice claims☆

Open access
Douglas, Rachel N., Stephens, Linda S., Posner, Karen L., Davies, Joanna M., Mincer, Shawn L., Burden, Amanda R., Domino, Karen B.·2021·British Journal of Anaesthesia

Abstract

Background Communication amongst team members is critical to providing safe, effective medical care. We investigated the role of communication failures in patient injury using the Anesthesia Closed Claims Project database. Methods Claims associated with surgical/procedural and obstetric anaesthesia and postoperative pain management for adverse events from 2004 or later were included. Communication was defined as transfer of information between two or more parties. Failure was defined as communication that was incomplete, inaccurate, absent, or not timely. We classified root causes of failures as content, audience, purpose, or occasion with inter-rater reliability assessed by kappa. Claims with communication failures contributing to injury (injury-related communication failures; n=389) were compared with claims without any communication failures (n=521) using Fisher's exact test, t-test, or Mann-Whitney U-tests. Results At least one communication failure contributing to patient injury occurred in 43% (n=389) out of 910 claims (κ=0.885). Patients in claims with injury-related communication failures were similar to patients in claims without failures, except that failures were more common in outpatient settings (34% vs 26%; P=0.004). Fifty-two claims had multiple communication failures for a total of 446 injury-related failures, and 47% of failures occurred during surgery, 28% preoperatively, and 23% postoperatively. Content failures (insufficient, inaccurate, or no information…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.bja.2021.05.030

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Incomplete or inaccurate handoffs are a source of subsequent medical errors and patient injury, particularly for patients undergoing major surgery.

    “Incomplete or inaccurate handoffs are a source of subsequent medical errors and patient injury,1–3 particularly for patients undergoing major surgery.4–7”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Douglas, R. N., Stephens, L. S., Posner, K. L., Davies, J. M., Mincer, S. L., Burden, A. R., & Domino, K. B.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Cooper University Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Domino, Karen B.
Venue
British Journal of Anaesthesia
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-09
Volume
127
Issue
3
Pages
470-478
ISSN
0007-0912 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3181213720
Cited by
52
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5
FWCI
10.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Anaesthesia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Washington
  • Anesthesia Quality Institute
  • American Society of Anesthesiologists
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1 RR025014)
  • Institute of Translational Health Sciences
  • National Center for Research Resources
  • University of Texas System
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Hospital Admissions and Outcomes
Keywords
communication breakdown, patient harm, root cause analysis, surgical anesthesia, obstetric anesthesia, postoperative pain management, information transmission, outpatient settings, patient safety
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Analgesia, Anesthesia, Anesthesia, Obstetrical, Female, Humans, Insurance, Liability, Male, Malpractice, Middle Aged, Patient Care Team, Physician-Patient Relations, Professional-Family Relations, Risk Factors, Databases, Factual, Risk Assessment, Medical Errors, Interdisciplinary Communication, Root Cause Analysis, Patient Safety

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review