Home > Riviste > Minerva Anestesiologica > Fascicoli precedenti > Minerva Anestesiologica 2014 August;80(8) > Minerva Anestesiologica 2014 August;80(8):913-21





Rivista di Anestesia, Rianimazione, Terapia Antalgica e Terapia Intensiva

Official Journal of the Italian Society of Anesthesiology, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care
Indexed/Abstracted in: Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 2,623




Minerva Anestesiologica 2014 August;80(8):913-21


lingua: Inglese

Checklist for anesthesiological process: analysis of risks

Ghirardini A. M., Guerra E., Serio L., Girardis M., Pasetto A., Busani S.

Cattedra e Servizio di Anestesia e Rianimazione, Policlinico di Modena, Modena, Italia


BACKGROUND: Several methods are reported in the literature to analyze medically undesirable events during hospital care. Each method has several limitations, so no one has been defined as the standard tool to be able to detect failure during a medical process. The aim of this study was to compare an anesthesiological perioperative checklist with traditional Regional Incident Reporting (RIR) form in detecting and describing failures.
METHODS: We analyzed RIR number of reports, seriousness and contributing factors. We also analyzed anesthesiological checklist data for: number of reports, seriousness of incident, contributing factors and distribution in macro-phases.
RESULTS: We screened 2681 patients who underwent gynecological and obstetrical surgeries. RIR showed only the most harmful events in 0.4% of surgeries. Conversely, we recorded 135 failures with anesthesiological checklists (3.3%), of which 123 (91.1%) were solved. Categories of incident in checklists were: failures for medical device/equipment (N.=30, 22.2%), for treatment/procedures (N.=25, 18.5%), for clinical assessment (N.=22, 16.2%), for consent/communication (N.=19, 14%), for medication (N.=16, 11.8%) and for documentation (N.=8, 5.9%). Ninety-four failures (69.6%) resulted in no harm for the patient, 41 (30.3%) in reversible damage and there were no cases of permanent damage/death. Contributing factors in checklists were mainly related to team (43.7%), task factors (28.1%) and work environment (22.2%). Failures detected in macro-phases were related to: clinical assessment (31.8%), presurgical re-assessment (23.7%), preparation for anesthesia (30.3%), anesthesia conduction (8.8%) and awakening (5.1%).
CONCLUSION: An anesthesiological checklist compared with traditional RIR provided a more sensible and complete framework for incident analysis during the perioperative period in patients undergoing gynecological and obstetrical surgeries.

inizio pagina

Publication History

Per citare questo articolo

Corresponding author e-mail