EAES classification of intraoperative adverse events in laparoscopic surgery
- 287 Downloads
Surgical outcomes are traditionally evaluated by post-operative data such as histopathology and morbidity. Although these outcomes are reported using accepted systems, their ability to influence operative performance is limited by their retrospective application. Interest in direct measurement of intraoperative events is growing but no available systems applicable to routine practice exist. We aimed to develop a structured, practical method to report intraoperative adverse events enacted during minimal access surgical procedures.
A structured mixed methodology approach was adopted. Current intraoperative adverse event reporting practices and desirable system characteristics were sought through a survey of the EAES executive. The observational clinical human reliability analysis method was applied to a series of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) case videos to identify intraoperative adverse events. In keeping with survey results, observed events were further categorised into non-consequential and consequential, which were further subdivided into four levels based upon the principle of therapy required to correct the event. A second survey phase explored usability, acceptability, face and content validity of the novel classification.
217 h of TME surgery were analysed to develop and continually refine the five-point hierarchical structure. 34 EAES expert surgeons (69%) responded. The lack of an accepted system was the main barrier to routine reporting. Simplicity, reproducibility and clinical utility were identified as essential requirements. The observed distribution of intraoperative adverse events was 60.1% grade I (non-consequential), 37.1% grade II (minor corrective action), 2.4% grade III (major correction or change in post-operative care) and 0.1% grade IV (life threatening). 84% agreed with the proposed classification (Likert scale 4.04) and 92% felt it was applicable to their practice and incorporated all desirable characteristics.
A clinically applicable intraoperative adverse event classification, which is acceptable to expert surgeons, is reported and complements the objective assessment of minimal access surgical performance.
KeywordsAdverse events Classification Laparoscopic Morbidity Intraoperative EAES
EAES research grant awarded to NKF for the 2D/3D trial (ISRCTN59485808).
Compliance with ethical standards
Prof Francis, Mr Curtis, Mr Conti, Mr Foster, Prof Bonjer and Prof Hanna confirm they hold no conflicts of interest or financial ties in relation to this manuscript. All collaborative authors also confirm no financial ties or conflicts of interest to disclose.
- 3.Bertelsen CA, Neuenschwander AU, Jansen JE, Wilhelmsen M, Kirkegaard-Klitbo A, Tenma JR et al (2015) Disease-free survival after complete mesocolic excision compared with conventional colon cancer surgery: a retrospective, population-based study. Lancet Oncol 16(2):161–168CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Quirke P, Steele R, Monson J, Grieve R, Khanna S, Couture J et al (2009) Effect of the plane of surgery achieved on local recurrence in patients with operable rectal cancer: a prospective study using data from the MRC CR07 and NCIC-CTG CO16 randomised clinical trial. Lancet 373(9666):821–828CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 26.Senders DM, Moray NP (1991) Human error: cause, prediction and reduction, 1 edn. CRC Press, Hillsdale, NJ, p 168Google Scholar
- 35.Fleshman J, Branda M, Sargent DJ, Boller AM, George V, Abbas M et al (2015) Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection of stage II or III rectal cancer on pathologic outcomes: the ACOSOG Z6051 randomized clinical trial. JAMA 314(13):1346–1355CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 37.Howell AM, Burns EM, Bouras G, Donaldson LJ, Athanasiou T, Darzi A (2015) Can patient safety incident reports be used to compare hospital safety? Results from a quantitative analysis of the English national reporting and learning system Data. PLoS ONE 10(12):e0144107CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar