The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A look into the nature and causes of human errors in the intensive care unit
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate the nature and causes of human errors in the intensive care unit (ICU), adopting approaches proposed by human factors engineering. The basic assumption was that errors occur and follow a pattern that can be uncovered. DESIGN: Concurrent incident study. SETTING: Medical-surgical ICU of a university hospital. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Two types of data were collected: errors reported by physicians and nurses immediately after an error discovery; and activity profiles based on 24-hr records taken by observers with human engineering experience on a sample of patients. During the 4 months of data collection, a total of 554 human errors were reported by the medical staff. Errors were rated for severity and classified according to the body system and type of medical activity involved. There was an average of 178 activities per patient per day and an estimated number of 1.7 errors per patient per day. For the ICU as a whole, a severe or potentially detrimental error occurred on the average twice a day. Physicians and nurses were about equal contributors to the number of errors, although nurses had many more activities per day. CONCLUSIONS: A significant number of dangerous human errors occur in the ICU. Many of these errors could be attributed to problems of communication between the physicians and nurses. Applying human factor engineering concepts to the study of the weak points of a specific ICU may help to reduce the number of errors. Errors should not be considered as an incurable disease, but rather as preventable phenomena.
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
Effect of Reducing Interns' Work Hours on Serious Medical Errors in Intensive Care Units
Landrigan, C. P., Rothschild, J. M., Cronin, J. W., Kaushal, R., Burdick, E., Katz, J. T., Lilly, C. M., Stone, P. H., Lockley, S. W., Bates, D. W., et al. (2004) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa041406 · Cited by 1,760
Has the mortality of septic shock changed with time?
Friedman, G., Silva, E., & Vincent, J.-L. (1998) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/00003246-199812000-00045 · Cited by 607
Human factors and cardiac surgery: A multicenter study
de Leval, M. R., Carthey, J., Wright, D. J., Farewell, V. T., & Reason, J. T. (2000) · The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery · doi:10.1016/s0022-5223(00)70006-7 · Cited by 507
Measuring errors and adverse events in health care
Thomas, E. J., & Petersen, L. A. (2003) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20147.x · Cited by 455
Effects of Critical Care Nurses’ Work Hours on Vigilance and Patients’ Safety
Scott, L. D., Rogers, A. E., Hwang, W.-T., & Zhang, Y. (2006) · American Journal of Critical Care · doi:10.4037/ajcc2006.15.1.30 · Cited by 408
Metadata
- Authors
- Donchin, Y., Gopher, D., Olin, M., Badihi, Y., Biesky, M. R., Sprung, C. L., Pizov, R., & Cotev, S.
- Venue
- Critical Care Medicine
- Published
- 1995-02
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 294-300
- ISSN
- 0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2081219706
- Cited by
- 838
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.47
- 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: A look into the nature and causes of human errors in the intensive care unit. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00003246-199502000-00015
- The paper
- Donchin, Y., Gopher, D., Olin, M., Badihi, Y., Biesky, M. R., Sprung, C. L., Pizov, R., & Cotev, S. (1995). A look into the nature and causes of human errors in the intensive care unit. Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003246-199502000-00015
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.