Communication failures contributing to patient injury in anaesthesia malpractice claims☆
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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”
From Potential uses of AI for perioperative nursing handoffs: a qualitative study (2023) · cites this paper as [7]
Cites
A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population
Haynes, A. B., Weiser, T. G., Berry, W. R., Lipsitz, S. R., Breizat, A.-H. S., Dellinger, E. P., Herbosa, T., Joseph, S., Kibatala, P. L., Lapitan, M. C. M., et al. (2009) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa0810119 · Cited by 5,688 · see citing works
Can We Make Postoperative Patient Handovers Safer? A Systematic Review of the Literature
Segall, N., Bonifacio, A. S., Schroeder, R. A., Barbeito, A., Rogers, D., Thornlow, D. K., Emery, J., Kellum, S., Wright, M. C., & Mark, J. B. (2012) · Anesthesia & Analgesia · doi:10.1213/ane.0b013e318253af4b · Cited by 250 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Potential uses of AI for perioperative nursing handoffs: a qualitative study
King, C. R., Shambe, A., & Abraham, J. (2023) · JAMIA Open · doi:10.1093/jamiaopen/ooad015 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
- 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)
- PMC
- PMC8563338
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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