Complications in Surgical Patients | Surgery | JAMA Surgery | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 35.170.64.36. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Kohn  LTedCorrigan  JMedDonaldson  MSed To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System.  Washington, DC National Academy Press2000;
2.
Brennan  TALeape  LLLaird  NM  et al.  Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients: results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I.  N Engl J Med. 1991;324370- 376Google ScholarCrossref
3.
Leape  LLBrennan  TALaird  N  et al.  The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients: results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study II.  N Engl J Med. 1991;324377- 384Google ScholarCrossref
4.
Thomas  EJStuddert  DMBurstin  HR  et al.  Incidence and types of adverse events and negligent care in Utah and Colorado.  Med Care. 2000;38261- 271Google ScholarCrossref
5.
McDonald  CJWeiner  MHui  SL Deaths due to medical errors are exaggerated in Institute of Medicine report.  JAMA. 2000;28493- 95Google ScholarCrossref
6.
Hayward  RAHofer  TP Estimating hospital deaths due to medical errors: preventability is in the eye of the reviewer.  JAMA. 2001;286415- 420Google ScholarCrossref
7.
Shackford  SRHollingsworth-Fridlund  PMcArdle  MEastman  AB Assuring quality in a trauma system—the Medical Audit Committee: composition, cost, and results.  J Trauma. 1987;27866- 875Google ScholarCrossref
8.
Not Available, University HealthSystem Consortium; Web site. Available at: http://www.uhc.edu. Accessed March 2002.
9.
Champion  HRFrey  LFSacco  WJ Determination of national normative outcomes of trauma [abstract].  J Trauma. 1984;24651Google Scholar
10.
O'Conner  GPlume  SOlmstead  E  et al.  Results of a regional prospective study to improve the in-hospital mortality associated with coronary artery bypass grafting.  JAMA. 1996;275841- 846Google ScholarCrossref
11.
Shimmel  EM The hazards of hospitalization.  Ann Intern Med. 1964;60100- 101Google ScholarCrossref
12.
Brook  RHBerg  MHSchechter  PA Effectiveness of nonemergency care via an emergency room.  Ann Intern Med. 1973;78333- 339Google ScholarCrossref
13.
Steel  KGertman  PMCrescinzi  CAnderson  J Iatrogenic illness on a general medical service at a university hospital.  N Engl J Med. 1981;304638- 642Google ScholarCrossref
14.
Bates  DWO'Neill  ACPeterson  LA  et al.  Evaluation of screening criteria for adverse events in medical patients.  Med Care. 1995;33452- 462Google ScholarCrossref
15.
Wilson  RMRunciman  WBGibberd  RWHarrison  BTNewby  LHamilton  JD The Quality in Australian Health Care Study.  Med J Aust. 1995;163458- 471Google Scholar
16.
Andrews  LBStocking  CKrizek  T  et al.  An alternative strategy for studying adverse events in medical care.  Lancet. 1997;349309- 313Google ScholarCrossref
17.
McGuire  HHHorsley  JS  IIISalter  DRSobel  M Measuring and managing quality of surgery: statistical vs incidental approaches.  Arch Surg 1992;127733- 737Google ScholarCrossref
18.
Thomas  EJStuddert  DMNewhouse  JP  et al.  Costs of medical injuries in Utah and Colorado.  Inquiry. 1999;36255- 264Google Scholar
Original Article
May 2002

Complications in Surgical Patients

Author Affiliations

From the Department of Surgery, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington.

Arch Surg. 2002;137(5):611-618. doi:10.1001/archsurg.137.5.611
Abstract

Hypothesis  Complications are common in hospitalized surgical patients. Provider error contributes to a significant proportion of these complications.

Design  Surgical patients were concurrently observed for the development of explicit complications. All complications were reviewed by the attending surgeon and other members of the service and evaluated for the severity of sequelae (major or minor) and for whether the complication resulted from medical error (avoidable) or not.

Setting  University teaching hospital with a level I trauma designation.

Patients  All inpatients (operative or nonoperative) from 4 different surgical services: general surgery, combined general surgery and trauma, vascular surgery, and cardiothoracic surgery.

Main Outcome Measures  Total complication rate (number of complications divided by the number of patients) and the number of patients with complications. Complications were separated into those with major or minor sequelae and the proportion of each type that were due to medical error (avoidable). Rates of complications in a recent Institute of Medicine report were used as a criterion standard.

Results  The data for the respective groups (general surgery, vascular surgery, combined general surgery and trauma, and cardiothoracic surgery) are as follows. The number of patients was 1363, 978, 914, and 1403; number of complications, 413, 409, 295, and 378; total complication rate, 30.3%, 42.4%, 32.3%, and 26.9%; minor complication rate, 13.3%, 19.9%, 13.5%, and 13.0% (percentage of minor complications that were avoidable, 37.4%, 59.0%, 51.2%, and 49.5%); major complication rate, 16.2%, 21.1%, 18.1%, and 12.9% (percentage of major complications that were avoidable, 53.4%, 60.7%, 38.8%, and 38.7%); and mortality rate, 1.83%, 3.33%, 2.28%, and 3.34% (percentage of mortality that was avoidable, 28.0%, 44.1%, 19.0%, and 25.0%).

Conclusions  Despite mortality rates that compare favorably with national benchmarks, a prospective examination of surgical patients reveals complication rates that are 2 to 4 times higher than those identified in an Institute of Medicine report. Almost half of these adverse events were judged contemporaneously by peers to be due to provider error (avoidable). Errors in care contributed to 38 (30%) of 128 deaths. Recognition that provider error contributes significantly to adverse events presents significant opportunities for improving patient outcomes.

×