Findings from 10 years of CIRS-AINS: An analysis of usepatterns and insights into new challenges

Abstract

Background: Critical incident reporting systems (CIRS) serve to sensitize organizations and individuals to unknown events relevant to patient safety and therefore help in developing safer systems; however, the use and impact of these systems in healthcare has recently been questioned for a variety of reasons, among them unclear and imprecise reporting criteria. Some authors claim that fundamental aspects of successful CIRS have been misunderstood, misapplied or entirely missed during the adaptation to the healthcare context. The aim of this study was the analysis of all reports accumulated over 10 years in the German system CIRSmedical Anesthesiology (CIRS-AINS) as a basis for improved reporting guidelines, user training and generation of further hypotheses. Methods: In a retrospective analysis all reports from CIRS-AINS entered between April 2010 and June 2019 were analyzed for structure and content. Results: A total of 6013 reports were filed consisting of 3492 incidents (58.1%), 1734 near misses (28.8%) and 787 others (13.1%). Those other reports contained 21 interpersonal conflicts (0.4%), 102 general complaints (1.7%), 89 stress or workload complaints (1.5%) and 575 reports that did not contain any critical incident or safety-related content (9.6%). Since 2015 these other reports have increased 2.8-fold from 7.4% to 20.8%. Of the reports 20.1% contained information about technical problems and 27.7% about certified medical devices. Medication was mentioned in 10.7% of reports, 47.8% of inpatient incidents concerned the perioperative setting, 24.6% were reported from intensive care units (ICU) and postanesthesia care units (PACU). Of the cases 198 (3.3%) explicitly mentioned communication issues, 346 cases (5.8%) concerned incomplete or inadequate documentation involving orders, blood products or laboratory tests. Of the reports 36.1% were analyzed and commented on by the CIRS team of the German Society of Anesthesiologists (BDA). Conclusion: The analysis provides insights into reporting practices and can influence both reporting guidelines as well as user training. Report format, content and context are of utmost importance for further analysis: A distinction has to be made between reports that contain locally rational information and cannot be understood without further context and reports that may help inform about patient safety activities on a national level. Especially in light of the limited resources for incident analysis, the content should be critically reflected upon by the user when submitting a report to support a wise allocation of available capacities. In this respect, the increase of non-CIRS reports has to be considered in the future implementation of nationwide IRS. Also, it has to be questioned whether adequate alternative means of communication for these non-CIRS reports exist. The majority of reports were made by physicians, which is in contrast to international experiences with increased engagement of nursing staff and underlines the need for increased interprofessional collaboration with incident reporting and analysis activities in Germany. Reports containing workload complaints, while constituting important signals on a local level, usually fail to address the idea of learning from others inherent to the philosophy of national IRS.