The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Recovery room incidents: a review of 419 reports from the Anaesthetic Incident Monitoring Study (AIMS)
Abstract
Summary Four hundred and nineteen incidents that occurred in the recovery room were extracted from the Anaesthetic Incident Monitoring Study database, representing 5% of the total database of 8372 reports. Incidents were reported mainly in daylight hours, with over 50% occurring in ASA 1–2 patients. The most common presenting problems related to respiratory/airway issues (183; 43%), cardiovascular problems (99; 24%) and drug errors (44; 11%). One hundred and twenty‐two events (29%) led to a major physiological disturbance and required management in the High Dependency Unit or Intensive Care Unit. Contributing factors cited included error of judgement (77; 18%), communication failure (57; 14%) and inadequate pre‐operative preparation (29; 7%), whilst factors minimising the incident included previous experience (97; 23%), detection by monitoring (72; 17%) and skilled assistance (54; 13%). Staffing and infrastructure of the recovery room needs to be supported, with ongoing education and quality assurance programmes developed to ensure that such events can be reduced in the future.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
CATCHPOLE, K. R., DE LEVAL, M. R., MCEWAN, A., PIGOTT, N., ELLIOTT, M. J., MCQUILLAN, A., MACDONALD, C., & GOLDMAN, A. J. (2007) · Pediatric Anesthesia · doi:10.1111/j.1460-9592.2006.02239.x · Cited by 516
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
Postoperative Handover: Problems, Pitfalls, and Prevention of Error
Nagpal, K., Arora, S., Abboudi, M., Vats, A., Wong, H. W., Manchanda, C., Vincent, C., & Moorthy, K. (2010) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e3181dc3656 · Cited by 147
Clinical Handover and Handoff in Healthcare: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews
Desmedt, M., Ulenaers, D., Grosemans, J., Hellings, J., & Bergs, J. (2021) · International Journal for Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzaa170 · Cited by 102
Siddiqui, N., Arzola, C., Iqbal, M., Sritharan, K., Guerina, L., Chung, F., & Friedman, Z. (2012) · European Journal of Anaesthesiology · doi:10.1097/eja.0b013e3283543e43 · Cited by 49
Metadata
- Authors
- Kluger, M. T., & Bullock, M. F. M.
- Venue
- Anaesthesia
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-10-22
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1060-1066
- ISSN
- 0003-2409 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2044
- OpenAlex
- W2006269343
- Cited by
- 181
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Recovery room incidents: a review of 419 reports from the Anaesthetic Incident Monitoring Study (AIMS). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2044.2002.02865.x
- The paper
- Kluger, M. T., & Bullock, M. F. M. (2002). Recovery room incidents: a review of 419 reports from the Anaesthetic Incident Monitoring Study (AIMS). Anaesthesia. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2044.2002.02865.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
