Wrong-Site and Wrong-Patient Procedures in the Universal Protocol Era: Analysis of a Prospective Database of Physician Self-reported Occurrences | 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.
Stahel  PFFakler  JKMSmith  WRClarke  TJMehler  PS Patient safety in surgery: what lessons can we learn from the current US standards?  Periop Med 2009;1 (1) 34- 43Google Scholar
2.
Michaels  RKMakary  MADahab  Y  et al.  Achieving the National Quality Forum's “Never Events”: prevention of wrong site, wrong procedure, and wrong patient operations.  Ann Surg 2007;245 (4) 526- 532PubMedGoogle Scholar
3.
American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Council on Education Report of the Task Force on Wrong-Site Surgery.  Rosemont, IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 1998
4.
Canale  ST Wrong-site surgery: a preventable complication.  Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005;433 (433) 26- 29PubMedGoogle Scholar
5.
 Statement on ensuring correct patient, correct site, and correct procedure surgery.  Bull Am Coll Surg 2002;87 (12) 26PubMedGoogle Scholar
6.
 Wrong site surgery and the Universal Protocol.  Bull Am Coll Surg 2006;91 (11) 63PubMedGoogle Scholar
7.
Stahel  PFMehler  PSClarke  TJVarnell  J The 5th anniversary of the “Universal Protocol”: pitfalls and pearls revisited [published online July 1, 2009].  Patient Saf Surg 2009;3 (1) 14PubMeddoi:10.1186/1754-9493-3-14Google Scholar
8.
Norton  E Implementing the Universal Protocol hospital-wide.  AORN J 2007;85 (6) 1187- 1197PubMedGoogle Scholar
9.
Hunter  JG Extend the universal protocol, not just the surgical time out.  J Am Coll Surg 2007;205 (4) e4- e5PubMedPubMedGoogle Scholar
10.
Edwards  P Ensuring correct site surgery.  J Perioper Pract 2008;18 (4) 168- 171PubMedGoogle Scholar
11.
Seiden  SCBarach  P Wrong-side/wrong-site, wrong-procedure, and wrong-patient adverse events: are they preventable?  Arch Surg 2006;141 (9) 931- 939PubMedGoogle Scholar
12.
Jhawar  BSMitsis  DDuggal  N Wrong-sided and wrong-level neurosurgery: a national survey.  J Neurosurg Spine 2007;7 (5) 467- 472PubMedGoogle Scholar
13.
Clarke  JRJohnston  JFinley  ED Getting surgery right.  Ann Surg 2007;246 (3) 395- 403PubMedGoogle Scholar
14.
Clarke  JRJohnston  JBlanco  MMMartindell  DP Wrong-site surgery: can we prevent it?  Adv Surg 2008;4213- 31PubMedGoogle Scholar
15.
Catalano  K Have you heard? the saga of wrong site surgery continues.  Plast Surg Nurs 2008;28 (1) 41- 44PubMedGoogle Scholar
16.
van Hille  PT Patient safety with particular reference to wrong site surgery—a presidential commentary.  Br J Neurosurg 2009;23 (2) 109- 110PubMedGoogle Scholar
17.
Shinde  SCarter  JA Wrong site neurosurgery—still a problem.  Anaesthesia 2009;64 (1) 1- 2PubMedGoogle Scholar
18.
Wong  DAHerndon  JHCanale  ST  et al.  Medical errors in orthopaedics: results of an AAOS member survey.  J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009;91 (3) 547- 557PubMedGoogle Scholar
19.
Kwaan  MRStuddert  DMZinner  MJGawande  AA Incidence, patterns, and prevention of wrong-site surgery.  Arch Surg 2006;141 (4) 353- 357PubMedGoogle Scholar
20.
Meinberg  EGStern  PJ Incidence of wrong-site surgery among hand surgeons.  J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003;85-A (2) 193- 197PubMedGoogle Scholar
21.
Rothman  G Wrong-site surgery.  Arch Surg 2006;141 (10) 1049- 1050PubMedGoogle Scholar
22.
Croteau  RJ Wrong-site surgeries are preventable.  Arch Surg 2007;142 (11) 1111- 1112PubMedGoogle Scholar
23.
Gallagher  THStuddert  DLevinson  W Disclosing harmful medical errors to patients.  N Engl J Med 2007;356 (26) 2713- 2719PubMedGoogle Scholar
24.
Newman-Toker  DEPronovost  PJ Diagnostic errors—the next frontier for patient safety.  JAMA 2009;301 (10) 1060- 1062PubMedGoogle Scholar
25.
Makary  MAMukherjee  ASexton  JB  et al.  Operating room briefings and wrong-site surgery.  J Am Coll Surg 2007;204 (2) 236- 243PubMedGoogle Scholar
26.
Stahel  PF Learning from aviation safety: a call for formal “readbacks” in surgery [published online September 17, 2008].  Patient Saf Surg 2008;2 (1) 21PubMedPubMedGoogle Scholar
27.
Harrington  JW Surgical time outs in a combat zone.  AORN J 2009;89 (3) 535- 537PubMedGoogle Scholar
28.
Pronovost  PJColantuoni  E Measuring preventable harm: helping science keep pace with policy.  JAMA 2009;301 (12) 1273- 1275PubMedGoogle Scholar
29.
Stahel  PFClavien  PAHahnloser  DSmith  WR A new journal devoted to patient safety in surgery: the time is now [published online November 7, 2007]!  Patient Saf Surg 2007;1 (1) 1PubMedPubMedGoogle Scholar
Original Article
October 2010October 18, 2010

Wrong-Site and Wrong-Patient Procedures in the Universal Protocol Era: Analysis of a Prospective Database of Physician Self-reported Occurrences

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Departments of Orthopaedic Surgery (Dr Stahel), Neurosurgery (Dr Stahel), and Internal Medicine (Drs Boyle and Mehler), Denver Health Medical Center and University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver; Department of Patient Safety and Quality, Denver Health Medical Center (Drs Sabel and Mehler); Department of Biostatistics and Informatics, University of Colorado (Dr Sabel); Colorado Physician Insurance Company, Denver (Drs Victoroff, Varnell, Lembitz, Boyle, and Clarke); and Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, Pennsylvania (Dr Smith).

Arch Surg. 2010;145(10):978-984. doi:10.1001/archsurg.2010.185
Abstract

Objective  To determine the frequency, root cause, and outcome of wrong-site and wrong-patient procedures in the era of the Universal Protocol.

Design  Analysis of a prospective physician insurance database performed from January 1, 2002, to June 1, 2008. Deidentified cases were screened using predefined taxonomy filters, and data were analyzed by evaluation criteria defined a priori.

Setting  Colorado.

Patients  Database contained 27 370 physician self-reported adverse occurrences.

Main Outcome Measures  Descriptive statistics were generated to examine the characteristics of the reporting physicians, the number of adverse events reported per year, and the root causes and occurrence-related patient outcomes.

Results  A total of 25 wrong-patient and 107 wrong-site procedures were identified during the study period. Significant harm was inflicted in 5 wrong-patient procedures (20.0%) and 38 wrong-site procedures (35.5%). One patient died secondary to a wrong-site procedure (0.9%). The main root causes leading to wrong-patient procedures were errors in diagnosis (56.0%) and errors in communication (100%), whereas wrong-site occurrences were related to errors in judgment (85.0%) and the lack of performing a “time-out” (72.0%). Nonsurgical specialties were involved in the cause of wrong-patient procedures and contributed equally with surgical disciplines to adverse outcome related to wrong-site occurrences.

Conclusions  These data reveal a persisting high frequency of surgical “never events.” Strict adherence to the Universal Protocol must be expanded to nonsurgical specialties to promote a zero-tolerance philosophy for these preventable incidents.

×