Identification and Categorization of Technical Errors by Observational Clinical Human Reliability Assessment (OCHRA) During Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy | Gastrointestinal 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.
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- 384PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Thomas  EJStuddert  DMBurstin  HR  et al.  Incidence and type of adverse events and negligent care in Utah and Colorado.  Med Care 2000;38261- 271PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Kohn  LTCorrigan  JMDonaldson  MSeds To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System.  Washington, DC National Academy Press2000;
4.
Berwick  DM Errors today and errors tomorrow.  N Engl J Med 2003;3482570- 2572PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Healey  MAShackford  SROsler  TMRogers  FBBurns  E Complications in surgical patients.  Arch Surg 2002;137611- 617PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Calland  JFAdams  RBBenjamin  DK  Jr  et al.  Thirty-day postoperative death rate at an academic medical centre.  Ann Surg 2002;235690- 698PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Andrews  LBStocking  CKrizek  T  et al.  An alternative strategy for studying adverse events in medical care.  Lancet 1997;349309- 313PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Martin  RCBrennan  MFJaques  DP Quality of complication reporting in the surgical literature.  Ann Surg 2002;235803- 813PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Green  JWintfeld  NSharkey  PPassman  LJ The importance of severity of illness in assessing hospital mortality.  JAMA 1990;263241- 246PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Feldman  LBarkun  JBarkun  ASampalis  JRosenberg  L Measuring postoperative complications in general surgery patients using an out-come-based strategy: comparison with complications presented at morbidity and mortality rounds.  Surgery 1997;122711- 720PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Thompson  JSPrior  AM Quality assurance and morbidity and mortality conference.  J Surg Res 1992;5297- 100PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Joice  PHanna  GBCuschieri  A Errors enacted during endoscopic surgery:a human reliability analysis.  Appl Ergon 1998;29409- 414PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Cuschieri  A Laparoscopic cholecystectomy.  J R Coll Surg Edinb 1999;44187- 192PubMedGoogle Scholar
14.
Senders  WMoray  NPeds Human Error (Cause, Prediction, and Reduction): Analysis and Synthesis.  Hillsdale, NJ Lawrence A Erlbaum Associates1991;
15.
Swain  ADGuttmann  HE A Handbook of Human Reliability Analysis With Emphasis on Nuclear Power Plant Applications.  Washington, DC US Nuclear Regulatory Commission1983;USNRC-Nureg/CR-1278
16.
Embrey  DE SHERPA: A Systematic Error Reduction and Prediction Approach.  Proceedings of Advances in Human Factors in Nuclear Power Systems Meeting Knoxville, Tenn1986;148- 193
17.
Hanna  GBShimi  SMCuschieri  A Randomized study of influence of two-dimensional versus three-dimensional imaging on performance of laparoscopic cholecystectomy.  Lancet 1998;351248- 251PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Kallianpur  ARPoehling  KADittus  RS High time for action.  N Engl J Med 2001;34448- 51PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Dean  BSchachter  MVincent  CBarber  N Causes of prescribing errors in hospital inpatients: a prospective study.  Lancet 2002;3591373- 1378PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Reason  J Human error: model and management.  BMJ 2000;320768- 770PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Donchin  YGopher  DOlin  M  et al.  A look into the nature and causes of human errors in the intensive care unit.  Crit Care Med 1995;23294- 300PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Helmreich  RL On error management: lessons from aviation.  BMJ 2000;320781- 785PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Barach  PSmall  SD Reporting and preventing medical mishaps: lessons from non-medical near miss reporting systems.  BMJ 2000;320759- 763PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Emam  TACuschieri  A How safe is high-power ultrasonic dissection?  Ann Surg 2003;237186- 191PubMedGoogle Scholar
25.
Hatano  TSugaya  KMorozumi  MNaito  AHokama  SOgawa  Y Partial nephrectomy using a vascular sealing system.  J Urol 2002;167232- 233PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Spath  PLed Error Reduction In Health Care: A Systems Approach to Improving Patient Safety.  Washington, DC AHA Press2000;
27.
Vincent  CTaylor-Adams  SChapman  EJ  et al.  How to investigate and analyse clinical incidents: clinical risk unit and association of litigation and risk management protocol.  BMJ 2000;320777- 781PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Original Article
November 1, 2004

Identification and Categorization of Technical Errors by Observational Clinical Human Reliability Assessment (OCHRA) During Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Surgical Skills Unit, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland (Drs Tang, Joice, and Cuschieri); and the Department of Oncology and Technology,St Mary[[rsquo]]s Hospital, Imperial College, London England (Dr Hanna).

Arch Surg. 2004;139(11):1215-1220. doi:10.1001/archsurg.139.11.1215
Abstract

Hypothesis  Surgical operative performance benefits from analysis of the mechanisms underlying technical errors committed during surgery.

Design  Prospective study using the Observational Clinical Human Reliability Assessment (OCHRA) system and complete unedited videotapes of the operations.

Setting  Three National Health Service hospitals within the United Kingdom.

Patients  Two hundred consecutive patients with symptomatic gallstone disease.

Interventions  Elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy for symptomatic gallstone disease by surgeons, who were blind to the nature and objectives of the study, using their usual operative technique.

Main Outcome Measures  Surgical consequential and inconsequential operative errors.

Results  The analysis of 38 062 steps of the 200 laparoscopic cholecystectomies performed by 26 surgeons identified 2242 errors. The mean ± SD total, inconsequential, and consequential errors per surgical procedure were 11.0 ± 8.0, 8.0 ± 6.0, and 4.0 ± 3.0, respectively. Dissection of the Calot triangle (second task zone of the operation) incurred more total errors (6.5 ± 5.4) compared with the first (2.9 ± 2.8, P<.001) and third (5.1 ± 3.9, P<.05) task zones. This translated to a higher error probability (6.9% vs 3.5% for the first and 5.5% for third task zones). The combined sharp and blunt dissection method had fewer errors than the blunt/teasing dissection technique (9.45 ± 7.6 vs 13.9 ± 7.3, P<.001) although different surgeons were involved. The most serious consequences were encountered during dissection with the electrosurgical hook knife.

Conclusion  This study has confirmed that the Observational Clinical Human Reliability Assessment system provides a comprehensive objective assessment of the quality of surgical operative performance by documenting the errors, the stage of the operation in which errors are enacted most frequently, and where these errors have serious consequences (hazard zones).

×