FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3208240212> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3208240212 endingPage "1304" @default.
• W3208240212 startingPage "1303" @default.
• W3208240212 abstract "Editor, We enjoyed discussing Patel's paper on the erroneous neuraxial administration of neuromuscular blocking drugs1 at our online journal club, based in Manchester, UK. Drawing on case reports of anaesthetic practice obtained through a systematic search of the MEDLINE database, ‘Patel based his analysis on three areas of focus. Firstly, human factors: contributions to error [as classified according to the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS)],2 secondly, clinical consequences of the neuraxial injection of neuromuscular blocking drugs and thirdly measures to prevent future incidents. We found the recommendations in this paper useful and wish to congratulate Patel on his use of HFACS as a systematic approach to working with unstructured data. However, we wish to draw readers’ attention to some of the biases inherent in the use of published case reports as the basis for such work. Case reports are an invaluable resource for clinicians, enabling readers to learn from the successes and errors of others and are particularly useful in promoting understanding of rare or novel phenomena. They are also rich with descriptive detail, which can facilitate further analysis using frameworks such as HFACS. However, there are three features of case reports that influence their usefulness in this type of study yet were not discussed as limitations by Patel.1 Firstly, case reports are author initiated and therefore are only written when authors are prepared to share their experiences with a wider readership. This may mean that cases in which there is an ongoing complaint or medicolegal process are less likely to be written-up for publication, for fear of influencing any associated investigation: clinicians may be more inclined to share reports with a positive outcome. Secondly, case reports should be published only with the consent of the patient or their next of kin, which likewise may be more challenging (or inappropriate) to obtain in cases where a poor outcome has resulted. Thirdly, publication relies on acceptance by a journal and the peer-review process may deem some reports to be insufficiently educational or interesting to justify publication. This may result, for example, in only cases with a well-explained pathway of error causation being published and a bias in favour of novel cases. The Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine notes that case series have a role in the detection of rare treatment harms, deeming them to be ‘level 4’ evidence in this setting.3 However, it is unlikely that Patel's study is a true ‘series’ as it is probable that the cases, identified from numerous journals, were not consistently reported with respect to one another, an issue that has previously been noted to hamper the synthesis of case reports.4 We suspect that the 20 cases identified may represent the tip of an ‘iceberg’ of similar unpublished errors, some of which may have had poor outcomes. It may, therefore, have been fruitful to include an analysis of reports made to specialised databases, such as the National Reporting and Learning System in England, MedWatch and the Institute for Safe Medication Practices Medication Errors Reporting Program in the USA and EudraVigilance in the European Economic Area, as has been done in previous patient safety studies.5 We agree with the positive findings of Patel's analysis, such as the importance of ‘syringe swap’ type errors and the measures that can be taken to mitigate these, such as the use of non-luer connectors,6 meticulous labelling and careful checking. In view of the potential for biases as outlined above, we are circumspect regarding the conclusion that ‘prolonged neurological follow-up does not appear to be necessary’ in view of the lack of evidence of neurotoxicity arising from the neuraxial injection of commonly used neuromuscular blocking drugs.1 On this point, we would emphasise the aphorism that ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’ and suggest that unless and until more rigorous evidence becomes available to confirm that the neuraxial injection of neuromuscular blocking drugs is benign, clinicians should adopt a cautious approach to follow-up." @default.
• W3208240212 created "2021-11-08" @default.
• W3208240212 creator A5009501591 @default.
• W3208240212 creator A5027387582 @default.
• W3208240212 creator A5029779193 @default.
• W3208240212 creator A5031899235 @default.
• W3208240212 date "2021-12-01" @default.
• W3208240212 modified "2023-10-03" @default.
• W3208240212 title "Erroneous neuraxial administration of neuromuscular blocking drugs" @default.
• W3208240212 cites W1821576079 @default.
• W3208240212 cites W2021745111 @default.
• W3208240212 cites W3022162502 @default.
• W3208240212 doi "https://doi.org/10.1097/eja.0000000000001460" @default.
• W3208240212 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34735401" @default.
• W3208240212 hasPublicationYear "2021" @default.
• W3208240212 type Work @default.
• W3208240212 sameAs 3208240212 @default.
• W3208240212 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W3208240212 countsByYear W32082402122022 @default.
• W3208240212 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3208240212 hasAuthorship W3208240212A5009501591 @default.
• W3208240212 hasAuthorship W3208240212A5027387582 @default.
• W3208240212 hasAuthorship W3208240212A5029779193 @default.
• W3208240212 hasAuthorship W3208240212A5031899235 @default.
• W3208240212 hasBestOaLocation W32082402121 @default.
• W3208240212 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3208240212 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3208240212 hasConcept C2777445551 @default.
• W3208240212 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W3208240212 hasConcept C2780838233 @default.
• W3208240212 hasConcept C509550671 @default.
• W3208240212 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W3208240212 hasConcept C82307848 @default.
• W3208240212 hasConceptScore W3208240212C17744445 @default.
• W3208240212 hasConceptScore W3208240212C199539241 @default.
• W3208240212 hasConceptScore W3208240212C2777445551 @default.
• W3208240212 hasConceptScore W3208240212C2779473830 @default.
• W3208240212 hasConceptScore W3208240212C2780838233 @default.
• W3208240212 hasConceptScore W3208240212C509550671 @default.
• W3208240212 hasConceptScore W3208240212C71924100 @default.
• W3208240212 hasConceptScore W3208240212C82307848 @default.
• W3208240212 hasIssue "12" @default.
• W3208240212 hasLocation W32082402121 @default.
• W3208240212 hasLocation W32082402122 @default.
• W3208240212 hasLocation W32082402123 @default.
• W3208240212 hasOpenAccess W3208240212 @default.
• W3208240212 hasPrimaryLocation W32082402121 @default.
• W3208240212 hasRelatedWork W1966382495 @default.
• W3208240212 hasRelatedWork W1966872508 @default.
• W3208240212 hasRelatedWork W1981575481 @default.
• W3208240212 hasRelatedWork W2004451713 @default.
• W3208240212 hasRelatedWork W2070311887 @default.
• W3208240212 hasRelatedWork W2073096022 @default.
• W3208240212 hasRelatedWork W2085194966 @default.
• W3208240212 hasRelatedWork W2285388550 @default.
• W3208240212 hasRelatedWork W278723740 @default.
• W3208240212 hasRelatedWork W4212973579 @default.
• W3208240212 hasVolume "38" @default.
• W3208240212 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3208240212 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3208240212 magId "3208240212" @default.
• W3208240212 workType "article" @default.