The Risk of Nursing in an Error Prone Environment

  • J. M. Binnekade
  • M. B. Vroom
  • J. Kesecioglu


In the Netherlands, the availability of intensive care unit (ICU) nurses is seriously threatened by a tight job market and future perspectives look even more worrisome. The availability of ICU nurses is an important factor in maintaining an acceptable level of quality of care [1–4]. Unfortunately, many ICUs are confronted with a rapid turnover within their nursing team resulting in a loss of experience. In addition, working under pressure in a complex environment may introduce errors [5]. As a result, the quality of care may become compromised as nurses perform and control the majority of tasks in direct patient care [6, 7]. Under these conditions, an objective indicator of nursing care quality would be very useful, especially when this indicator is able to detect deterioration in quality before it becomes apparent. The difficulty of such a tool is the fact that quality needs to be expressed in a quantitative manner. Therefore, a new instrument was developed, providing quantitative measures adjustable to the specific working environment.


Intensive Care Unit Nursing Care Direct Patient Care Nursing Team Adult Intensive Care Unit 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Tarnow-Mordi WO, Hau C, Warden A, Shearer AJ (2000) Hospital mortality in relation to staff workload: a 4-year study in an adult intensive care unit. Lancet 356: 185–189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Servellen G, Schultz MA (1999) Demystifying the influence of Hospital Characteristics on Inpatient Mortality Rates. J Nurs Adm 29: 39–47PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aiken LH, Smith HL, Lake ET (1994) Lower medicare mortality among a set of hosptials known for good nursing care. Med Care 32: 771–787PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Taunton RL, Kleinbeck SVM, Stafford R, Woods CQ, Bott MJ (1994) Patient outcomes. Are they linked to registered nurse absenteeism, separation, or workload? J Nurs Adm 24 (4S): 48–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berwick DM. Taking action to improve safety: How to increase the odds of success. (http:// Scholar
  6. 6.
    Donchin Y, Gopher D, Olin M, et al (1995) A look into the nature and causes of human errors in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 23: 294–300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Giraud T, Dhainaut JF, Vaxelaire JF, et al (1993) Iatrogenic complications in adult intensive care units: a prospective two center study. Crit Care Med 21: 40–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Glance LG, Osier TM, Dick A (2002) Rating the quality of intensive care units: is it a function of the intensive care unit scroring system? Crit Care Med 30: 1976–1982PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reason J (1990) Human Error. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Norman DA (1988) To err is human. In: The Psychology of Everyday Things. Basic Books, New York, pp 105–140Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Runciman WB, Sellen A, Webb RK, et al (1993) Errors, Incidents and Accidents in Anaesthetic Practice. Anaesth Intensive Care 21: 506–519PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Binnekade JM, Mol BA de, Kesecioglu J, Haan RJ de (2001) The Critical Nursing Situation Index for safety assessment in intensive care. Intensive Care Med 27: 1022–1028PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. M. Binnekade
  • M. B. Vroom
  • J. Kesecioglu

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations