Retained Swabs? A Never Event or a ‘Clever’ Event that has the Potential to Act as a Fundamental Driver to Improve Practice and Systems

2012 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 112-113
Author(s):  
Tracy Coates
Keyword(s):  
Geoheritage ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger Crofts ◽  
Dan Tormey ◽  
John E. Gordon

AbstractThis paper introduces newly published guidelines on geoheritage conservation in protected and conserved areas within the “IUCN WCPA Best Practice Guidelines” series. It explains the need for the guidelines and outlines the ethical basis of geoheritage values and geoconservation principles as the fundamental framework within which to advance geoheritage conservation. Best practice in establishing and managing protected and conserved areas for geoconservation is described with examples from around the world. Particular emphasis is given to the methodology and practice for dealing with the many threats to geoheritage, highlighting in particular how to improve practice for areas with caves and karst, glacial and periglacial, and volcanic features and processes, and for palaeontology and mineral sites. Guidance to improve education and communication to the public through modern and conventional means is also highlighted as a key stage in delivering effective geoconservation. A request is made to geoconservation experts to continue to share best practice examples of developing methodologies and best practice in management to guide non-experts in their work. Finally, a number of suggestions are made on how geoconservation can be further promoted.


2020 ◽  
pp. 112972982094345
Author(s):  
Maryanne Z A Mariyaselvam ◽  
Vikesh Patel ◽  
Adam Sawyer ◽  
James A Richardson ◽  
Jonathan Dean ◽  
...  

Background: Central venous catheter guidewire retention is classed as a ‘never event’ in the United Kingdom, with the potential for significant patient harm. If the retained guidewire remains within the central venous catheter lumen, bedside techniques may facilitate guidewire retrieval. However, these techniques may be ineffective if the guidewire has already passed below skin level. We investigated a novel ‘suck out’ technique for bedside guidewire retrieval and compared this against traditional retrieval methods. Methods: Simulation 1: in a benchtop model, seven different central venous catheters had their corresponding guidewire placed in the last 2 cm of the catheter tip which was immersed horizontally in fluid. A 50-mL syringe was attached to the distal lumen central venous catheter hub and suction applied for 5 s, and the distance of guidewire retraction was recorded. Simulation 2: a central venous catheter guidewire was intentionally retained within the catheter at either 5 cm above or below skin level in a pigskin model. Simple catheter withdrawal, catheter clamping withdrawal and the ‘suck out’ method were compared for efficacy using Fisher’s exact test. Results: Simulation 1: retained guidewires were retracted by 13 cm on average. Simulation 2: when guidewires were retained 5 cm above skin level, all retrieval methods were 100% effective; however, when retained 5 cm below skin level, simple catheter withdrawal was ineffective, clamping and withdrawal was only 10% effective and the ‘suck out’ technique was 90% effective (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The ‘suck out’ technique can effectively retract guidewires retained within central venous catheter lumens and demonstrates superiority over traditional methods of retained guidewire extraction in simulated models.


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S119-S120
Author(s):  
Twisha S Patel ◽  
Lindsay A Petty ◽  
Jiajun Liu ◽  
Marc H Scheetz ◽  
Nicholas Mercuro ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Antibiotic use is commonly tracked electronically by antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs). Traditionally, evaluating the appropriateness of antibiotic use requires time- and labor-intensive manual review of each drug order. A drug-specific “appropriateness” algorithm applied electronically would improve the efficiency of ASPs. We thus created an antibiotic “never event” (NE) algorithm to evaluate vancomycin use, and sought to determine the performance characteristics of the electronic data capture strategy. Methods An antibiotic NE algorithm was developed to characterize vancomycin use (Figure) at a large academic institution (1/2016–8/2019). Patients were electronically classified according to the NE algorithm using data abstracted from their electronic health record. Type 1 NEs, defined as continued use of vancomycin after a vancomycin non-susceptible pathogen was identified, were the focus of this analysis. Type 1 NEs identified by automated data capture were reviewed manually for accuracy by either an infectious diseases (ID) physician or an ID pharmacist. The positive predictive value (PPV) of the electronic data capture was determined. Antibiotic Never Event (NE) Algorithm to Characterize Vancomycin Use Results A total of 38,774 unique cases of vancomycin use were available for screening. Of these, 0.6% (n=225) had a vancomycin non-susceptible pathogen identified, and 12.4% (28/225) were classified as a Type 1 NE by automated data capture. All 28 cases included vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus spp (VRE). Upon manual review, 11 cases were determined to be true positives resulting in a PPV of 39.3%. Reasons for the 17 false positives are given in Table 1. Asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) due to VRE in scenarios where vancomycin was being appropriately used to treat a concomitant vancomycin-susceptible infection was the most common reason for false positivity, accounting for 64.7% of false positive cases. After removing urine culture source (n=15) from the algorithm, PPV improved to 53.8%. Conclusion An automated vancomycin NE algorithm identified 28 Type 1 NEs with a PPV of 39%. ASB was the most common cause of false positivity and removing urine culture as a source from the algorithm improved PPV. Future directions include evaluating Type 2 NEs (Figure) and prospective, real-time application of the algorithm. Disclosures Marc H. Scheetz, PharmD, MSc, Merck and Co. (Grant/Research Support)


2021 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Islam Omar ◽  
Rishi Singhal ◽  
Michael Wilson ◽  
Chetan Parmar ◽  
Omar Khan ◽  
...  

Abstract Background There is little available data on common general surgical never events (NEs). Lack of this information may have affected our attempts to reduce the incidence of these potentially serious clinical incidents. Objectives The purpose of this study was to identify common general surgical NEs from the data held by the National Health Service (NHS) England. Methods We analysed the NHS England NE data from April 2012 to February 2020 to identify common general surgical NEs. Results There was a total of 797 general surgical NEs identified under three main categories such as wrong-site surgery (n = 427; 53.58%), retained items post-procedure (n = 355; 44.54%) and wrong implant/prosthesis (n = 15; 1.88%). We identified a total of 56 common general surgical themes—25 each in the wrong-site surgery and retained foreign body categories and six in wrong implants category. Wrong skin condition surgery was the commonest wrong-site surgery (n = 117; 27.4%). There were 18 wrong-side chest drains (4.2%) and 18 (4.2%) wrong-side angioplasty/angiograms. There were seven (1.6%) instances of confusion in pilonidal/perianal/perineal surgeries and six (1.4%) instances of biopsy of the cervix rather than the colon or rectum. Retained surgical swabs were the most common retained items (n = 165; 46.5%). There were 28 (7.9%) laparoscopic retrieval bags with or without the specimen, 26 (7.3%) chest drain guide wires, 26 (7.3%) surgical needles and 9 (2.5%) surgical drains. Wrong stents were the most common (n = 9; 60%) wrong implants followed by wrong breast implants (n = 2; 13.3%). Conclusion This study found 56 common general surgical NEs. This information is not available to surgeons around the world. Increased awareness of these common themes of NEs may allow for the adoption of more effective and specific safeguards and ultimately help reduce their incidence.


Anaesthesia ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Olivarius‐McAllister ◽  
M. Pandit ◽  
A. Sykes ◽  
J. J. Pandit

2004 ◽  
Vol 106 (6) ◽  
pp. 1258-1287 ◽  
Author(s):  
Debra Ingram ◽  
Karen Seashore Louis ◽  
Roger G. Schroeder

2015 ◽  
Vol 39 (6) ◽  
pp. 539
Author(s):  
Christopher Tran ◽  
Dora M. Liu ◽  
Amir Afkham ◽  
Clare E. Liddy ◽  
Erin J. Keely
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document