Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 352

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Australian Incident Monitoring Study: An Analysis of 2000 Incident Reports

Webb, R. K., Currie, M., Morgan, C. A., Williamson, J. A., Mackay, P., Russell, W. J., Runciman, W. B.·1993·Anaesthesia and Intensive Care

Abstract

The Australian Patient Safety Foundation was formed in 1987; it was decided to set up and co-ordinate the Australian Incident Monitoring Study as a function of this Foundation; 90 hospitals and practices joined the study. Participating anaesthetists were invited to report, on an anonymous and voluntary basis, any unintended incident which reduced, or could have reduced, the safety margin for a patient. Any incident could be reported, not only those which were deemed “preventable” or were thought to involve human error. The Mark I AIMS form was developed which incorporated features and concepts from several other studies. All the incidents in this symposium were reported using this form, which contains general instructions to the reporter, key words and space for a narrative of the incident, structured sections for what happened (with subsections for circuitry incidents, circuitry involved, equipment involved, pharmacological incidents and airway incidents), why it happened (with subsections for factors contributing to the incident, factors minimising the incident and suggested corrective strategies), the type of anaesthesia and procedure, monitors in use, when and where the incident happened, the experience of the personnel involved, patient age and a classification of patient outcome. Enrolment, reporting and data-handling procedures are described. Data on patient outcome are presented; this is correlated with the stages at which the incident occurred and with the ASA status of the patients. The locations at which the incidents occurred and the types of procedures, the sets of incidents analysed in detail and a breakdown of the incidents due to drugs are also presented. The pattern and relative frequencies of the various categories of incidents are similar to those in “closed-claims” studies, suggesting that AIMS should provide information of relevance to those wishing to develop strategies to reduce the incidence and/or impact of incidents and accidents.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0310057x9302100507

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 352

Metadata

Authors
Webb, R. K., Currie, M., Morgan, C. A., Williamson, J. A., Mackay, P., Russell, W. J., & Runciman, W. B.
Venue
Anaesthesia and Intensive Care
Published
1993-10
Volume
21
Issue
5
Pages
520-528
ISSN
  • 0310-057X (ISSN-L)
  • 1448-0271
OpenAlex
W2499087506
Cited by
352
References
1
FWCI
32.31
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: The Australian Incident Monitoring Study: An Analysis of 2000 Incident Reports. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0310057x9302100507
The paper
Webb, R. K., Currie, M., Morgan, C. A., Williamson, J. A., Mackay, P., Russell, W. J., & Runciman, W. B. (1993). The Australian Incident Monitoring Study: An Analysis of 2000 Incident Reports. Anaesthesia and Intensive Care. https://doi.org/10.1177/0310057x9302100507

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.