Loading…

Patient safety in radiology: Our experience

Present-day radiology departments have very high footfall of patients and are prone to patient safety errors. This study analyses such errors in our hospital. Observational cross-sectional analysis of errors over the last 30 months was performed. These were classified using the Eindhoven classificat...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Medical journal. Armed Forces India 2023-07, Vol.79 (4), p.373-377
Main Authors: Aggarwal, Rohit, Mukhopadhyay, Indrani, George, R.A., Alam, A.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Present-day radiology departments have very high footfall of patients and are prone to patient safety errors. This study analyses such errors in our hospital. Observational cross-sectional analysis of errors over the last 30 months was performed. These were classified using the Eindhoven classification model into technical, organizational, and human errors. Technical errors focused on equipment safety. Organizational errors related to policies. Human errors were subclassified as per the skill rule knowledge model. Root cause analysis was performed wherever necessary, and possible mitigation strategies for ensuring safety were suggested. Errors peculiar to the Armed Forces environment were specifically addressed. Seventy-seven errors were analyzed. Two were equipment based including faulty pressure injector syringes and radiation leakage from the computed tomography gantry. Of 44 skill-based errors, 09 involved dispatch of wrong reports to dependents owing to identifying patients with serving personnel's name. Four were due to scanning wrong sites. Eleven involved reporting abnormality on the wrong side. Six involved underreporting due to not viewing specific images. The rest were due to failure to omit conflicting elements in the report. Rule-based errors included wrong protocol selection (9 errors), omitting a particular sequence due to individual preference (6 errors), and so on. Knowledge-based errors were due to misinterpretation of findings (4 errors), reporting an abnormality as normal (3 errors), and selection of wrong modality (3 errors). The findings of this study highlights the importance of voluntary reporting, diligent recording, and in-depth analysis of errors for understanding the causes and formulating possible mitigation strategies.
ISSN:0377-1237
2213-4743
DOI:10.1016/j.mjafi.2020.09.006