You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 130 No. 10, October 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Original Article
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 • Reply to article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on ISI (4)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related article
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Quality of Care, Other
 •Middle/ External Ear Disorders
 •Alert me on articles by topic

Human Error Identification

An Analysis of Myringotomy and Ventilation Tube Insertion

Mary-Louise Montague, MRCS; Michael S. W. Lee, FRCS; S. S. M. Hussain, FRCS

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130:1153-1157.

Objectives  To use a human reliability assessment tool to identify commonly occurring errors during myringotomy and ventilation tube (VT) insertion and to quantify the likelihood of error occurrence.

Methods  Error-free task analysis for myringotomy and VT insertion was defined at the outset. Fifty-five consecutive myringotomy and VT insertion procedures were videotaped. The operator was either the senior author (S.S.M.H.) or a trainee in the specialist registrar or senior house officer grade. Three assessors (M.-L.M., M.S.W.L, and S.S.M.H.) blinded to operator identity independently evaluated each procedure. Interobserver agreement was calculated ({kappa} values).

Results  Twelve potential error types were identified. A total of 87 errors were observed in 55 procedures. In 53% of procedures (n = 29) multiple errors were identified. Seven percent of procedures (n = 4) were error free. The 4 most frequent errors identified were (1) failure to perform a unidirectional myringotomy incision (n = 37; 43%); (2) multiple attempts to place VT (n = 14; 16%); (3) multiple attempts to complete the myringotomy (n = 11; 13%); and (4) magnification setting too high (n = 11; 13%). The human error probability was 0.13. Interobserver agreement as expressed by {kappa} statistics was high.

Conclusions  Human error identification in this most common of otologic procedures is crucial to future error avoidance. Eliminating the 2 most common errors in this model will halve the human error probability. Extending the role of error analysis to error-based teaching as an educational tool has potential.


From the Department of Otolaryngology, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, Scotland. The authors have no relevant financial interest in this article.


RELATED ARTICLE

Striving for Imperfection: Facing Up to Human Error in Medicine
Molly Zirkle and David W. Roberson
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130(10):1149-1151.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

The Difficulty of Identifying and Enumerating Human Errors
Berry
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2005;131:539-539.
FULL TEXT  

The Difficulty of Identifying and Enumerating Human Errors--Reply
Hussain
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2005;131:539-539.
FULL TEXT  

Striving for Imperfection: Facing Up to Human Error in Medicine
Zirkle and Roberson
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;130:1149-1151.
FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2004 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.