ABSTRACT

Critical incident reporting systems (CIRS) and morbidity–mortality meetings (MMMs) offer the advantages of identifying potential risks in patients. They are key tools in improving patient safety in healthcare systems by modifying the attitudes of clinicians, nurses and staff (human error) and also the system (human and/or technical error) according to the analysis and the results of incidents.

One anaesthetist assigned to an administrative and/or teaching position from all university hospitals (UHs) and training and research hospitals (TRHs) of Turkey (n=114) was contacted. In this survey study, we analysed the facilities of anaesthetists in Turkish UHs and TRHs with respect to CIRS and MMMs and also the anaesthetists’ knowledge, experience and attitudes regarding CIs.

Anaesthetists from 81 of 114 teaching hospitals replied to our survey. Although 96.3% of anaesthetists indicated CI reporting as a necessity, only 37% of departments/hospitals were reported to have CIRS. True definition of CI as “an unexpected /accidental event” was achieved by 23.3% of anaesthetists with CIRS. MMMs were reported in 60.5% of hospitals. Nevertheless, 96% of anaesthetists believe that CIRS and MMMs decrease the incidence of CI occurring. CI occurrence was attributed to human error as 4 [1–5]/10 and 3 [1–5]/10 in UHs and TRHs, respectively (p=0.005). In both hospital types, technical errors were evaluated as 3 [1–5]/10 (p=0.498).

This first study regarding CIRS in the Turkish anaesthesia departments/hospitals highlights the lack of CI knowledge and CIRS awareness and use in anaesthesia departments/teaching hospitals in Turkey despite a safety reporting system set up by the Turkish Ministry of Health.

Keywords: Critical incident, critical incident reporting systems, morbidity–mortality meetings, patient safety, anaesthesia