Analyzing Communication Errors in an Air Medical Transport Service

Abstract Introduction Poor communication can result in adverse events. Presently, no standards exist for classifying and analyzing air medical communication errors. This study sought to determine the frequency and types of communication errors reported within an air medical quality and safety assura...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Air medical journal 2013-05, Vol.32 (3), p.129-137
Hauptverfasser: Dalto, Joseph D., MS, Weir, Charlene, PhD, Thomas, Frank, MD, MBA
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 137
container_issue 3
container_start_page 129
container_title Air medical journal
container_volume 32
creator Dalto, Joseph D., MS
Weir, Charlene, PhD
Thomas, Frank, MD, MBA
description Abstract Introduction Poor communication can result in adverse events. Presently, no standards exist for classifying and analyzing air medical communication errors. This study sought to determine the frequency and types of communication errors reported within an air medical quality and safety assurance reporting system. Methods Of 825 quality assurance reports submitted in 2009, 278 were randomly selected and analyzed for communication errors. Each communication error was classified and mapped to Clark's communication level hierarchy (ie, levels 1–4). Descriptive statistics were performed, and comparisons were evaluated using chi-square analysis. Results Sixty-four communication errors were identified in 58 reports (21% of 278). Of the 64 identified communication errors, only 18 (28%) were classified by the staff to be communication errors. Communication errors occurred most often at level 1 (n = 42/64, 66%) followed by level 4 (21/64, 33%). Level 2 and 3 communication failures were rare (, 1%). Conclusion Communication errors were found in a fifth of quality and safety assurance reports. The reporting staff identified less than a third of these errors. Nearly all communication errors (99%) occurred at either the lowest level of communication (level 1, 66%) or the highest level (level 4, 33%). An air medical communication ontology is necessary to improve the recognition and analysis of communication errors.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.amj.2012.10.019
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1347787069</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1067991X12003331</els_id><sourcerecordid>1347787069</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c323t-e8c537da3fc1038b1a8faab84eb71af29f3d74f9187b0e8df9af51d1834394b73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU-L1TAUxYMozh_9AG6kSzd95iZ9TYIgvHnMqDDiYkZwF9L0RlLb5Jm0A89Pb8obXbhwleTmnAP3dwh5BXQDFNq3w8ZMw4ZRYOW9oaCekHPYcla3jRJPy522olYKvp2Ri5wHWoRCNs_JGeMtZ4zBObnaBTMef_nwvdrHaVqCt2b2MVTXKcWUKx8qE6qdT9Vn7MvfWN0nE_Ihprm6w_TgLb4gz5wZM758PC_J15vr-_3H-vbLh0_73W1tOeNzjdJuuegNdxYolx0Y6YzpZIOdAOOYcrwXjVMgRUdR9k4Zt4UeJG-4ajrBL8mbU-4hxZ8L5llPPlscRxMwLlkDb4SQgraqSOEktSnmnNDpQ_KTSUcNVK_o9KALOr2iW0cFXfG8foxfugn7v44_rIrg3UmAZckHj0ln6zHYwiWhnXUf_X_j3__jtqNfaY8_8Ih5iEsqTZQtdGaa6ru1u7U6YJRyzoH_Bs5Ok1Y</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1347787069</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Analyzing Communication Errors in an Air Medical Transport Service</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Dalto, Joseph D., MS ; Weir, Charlene, PhD ; Thomas, Frank, MD, MBA</creator><creatorcontrib>Dalto, Joseph D., MS ; Weir, Charlene, PhD ; Thomas, Frank, MD, MBA</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Introduction Poor communication can result in adverse events. Presently, no standards exist for classifying and analyzing air medical communication errors. This study sought to determine the frequency and types of communication errors reported within an air medical quality and safety assurance reporting system. Methods Of 825 quality assurance reports submitted in 2009, 278 were randomly selected and analyzed for communication errors. Each communication error was classified and mapped to Clark's communication level hierarchy (ie, levels 1–4). Descriptive statistics were performed, and comparisons were evaluated using chi-square analysis. Results Sixty-four communication errors were identified in 58 reports (21% of 278). Of the 64 identified communication errors, only 18 (28%) were classified by the staff to be communication errors. Communication errors occurred most often at level 1 (n = 42/64, 66%) followed by level 4 (21/64, 33%). Level 2 and 3 communication failures were rare (, 1%). Conclusion Communication errors were found in a fifth of quality and safety assurance reports. The reporting staff identified less than a third of these errors. Nearly all communication errors (99%) occurred at either the lowest level of communication (level 1, 66%) or the highest level (level 4, 33%). An air medical communication ontology is necessary to improve the recognition and analysis of communication errors.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1067-991X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-6497</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.amj.2012.10.019</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23632221</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Air Ambulances - standards ; Communication ; Emergency ; Health administration ; Humans ; Internal Medicine ; Quality Assurance, Health Care ; Safety</subject><ispartof>Air medical journal, 2013-05, Vol.32 (3), p.129-137</ispartof><rights>Air Medical Journal Associates</rights><rights>2013 Air Medical Journal Associates</rights><rights>Copyright © 2013 Air Medical Journal Associates. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c323t-e8c537da3fc1038b1a8faab84eb71af29f3d74f9187b0e8df9af51d1834394b73</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c323t-e8c537da3fc1038b1a8faab84eb71af29f3d74f9187b0e8df9af51d1834394b73</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1067991X12003331$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23632221$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Dalto, Joseph D., MS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weir, Charlene, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thomas, Frank, MD, MBA</creatorcontrib><title>Analyzing Communication Errors in an Air Medical Transport Service</title><title>Air medical journal</title><addtitle>Air Med J</addtitle><description>Abstract Introduction Poor communication can result in adverse events. Presently, no standards exist for classifying and analyzing air medical communication errors. This study sought to determine the frequency and types of communication errors reported within an air medical quality and safety assurance reporting system. Methods Of 825 quality assurance reports submitted in 2009, 278 were randomly selected and analyzed for communication errors. Each communication error was classified and mapped to Clark's communication level hierarchy (ie, levels 1–4). Descriptive statistics were performed, and comparisons were evaluated using chi-square analysis. Results Sixty-four communication errors were identified in 58 reports (21% of 278). Of the 64 identified communication errors, only 18 (28%) were classified by the staff to be communication errors. Communication errors occurred most often at level 1 (n = 42/64, 66%) followed by level 4 (21/64, 33%). Level 2 and 3 communication failures were rare (, 1%). Conclusion Communication errors were found in a fifth of quality and safety assurance reports. The reporting staff identified less than a third of these errors. Nearly all communication errors (99%) occurred at either the lowest level of communication (level 1, 66%) or the highest level (level 4, 33%). An air medical communication ontology is necessary to improve the recognition and analysis of communication errors.</description><subject>Air Ambulances - standards</subject><subject>Communication</subject><subject>Emergency</subject><subject>Health administration</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>Quality Assurance, Health Care</subject><subject>Safety</subject><issn>1067-991X</issn><issn>1532-6497</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kU-L1TAUxYMozh_9AG6kSzd95iZ9TYIgvHnMqDDiYkZwF9L0RlLb5Jm0A89Pb8obXbhwleTmnAP3dwh5BXQDFNq3w8ZMw4ZRYOW9oaCekHPYcla3jRJPy522olYKvp2Ri5wHWoRCNs_JGeMtZ4zBObnaBTMef_nwvdrHaVqCt2b2MVTXKcWUKx8qE6qdT9Vn7MvfWN0nE_Ihprm6w_TgLb4gz5wZM758PC_J15vr-_3H-vbLh0_73W1tOeNzjdJuuegNdxYolx0Y6YzpZIOdAOOYcrwXjVMgRUdR9k4Zt4UeJG-4ajrBL8mbU-4hxZ8L5llPPlscRxMwLlkDb4SQgraqSOEktSnmnNDpQ_KTSUcNVK_o9KALOr2iW0cFXfG8foxfugn7v44_rIrg3UmAZckHj0ln6zHYwiWhnXUf_X_j3__jtqNfaY8_8Ih5iEsqTZQtdGaa6ru1u7U6YJRyzoH_Bs5Ok1Y</recordid><startdate>201305</startdate><enddate>201305</enddate><creator>Dalto, Joseph D., MS</creator><creator>Weir, Charlene, PhD</creator><creator>Thomas, Frank, MD, MBA</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201305</creationdate><title>Analyzing Communication Errors in an Air Medical Transport Service</title><author>Dalto, Joseph D., MS ; Weir, Charlene, PhD ; Thomas, Frank, MD, MBA</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c323t-e8c537da3fc1038b1a8faab84eb71af29f3d74f9187b0e8df9af51d1834394b73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Air Ambulances - standards</topic><topic>Communication</topic><topic>Emergency</topic><topic>Health administration</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>Quality Assurance, Health Care</topic><topic>Safety</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Dalto, Joseph D., MS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weir, Charlene, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thomas, Frank, MD, MBA</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Air medical journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Dalto, Joseph D., MS</au><au>Weir, Charlene, PhD</au><au>Thomas, Frank, MD, MBA</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Analyzing Communication Errors in an Air Medical Transport Service</atitle><jtitle>Air medical journal</jtitle><addtitle>Air Med J</addtitle><date>2013-05</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>32</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>129</spage><epage>137</epage><pages>129-137</pages><issn>1067-991X</issn><eissn>1532-6497</eissn><abstract>Abstract Introduction Poor communication can result in adverse events. Presently, no standards exist for classifying and analyzing air medical communication errors. This study sought to determine the frequency and types of communication errors reported within an air medical quality and safety assurance reporting system. Methods Of 825 quality assurance reports submitted in 2009, 278 were randomly selected and analyzed for communication errors. Each communication error was classified and mapped to Clark's communication level hierarchy (ie, levels 1–4). Descriptive statistics were performed, and comparisons were evaluated using chi-square analysis. Results Sixty-four communication errors were identified in 58 reports (21% of 278). Of the 64 identified communication errors, only 18 (28%) were classified by the staff to be communication errors. Communication errors occurred most often at level 1 (n = 42/64, 66%) followed by level 4 (21/64, 33%). Level 2 and 3 communication failures were rare (, 1%). Conclusion Communication errors were found in a fifth of quality and safety assurance reports. The reporting staff identified less than a third of these errors. Nearly all communication errors (99%) occurred at either the lowest level of communication (level 1, 66%) or the highest level (level 4, 33%). An air medical communication ontology is necessary to improve the recognition and analysis of communication errors.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>23632221</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.amj.2012.10.019</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1067-991X
ispartof Air medical journal, 2013-05, Vol.32 (3), p.129-137
issn 1067-991X
1532-6497
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1347787069
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Air Ambulances - standards
Communication
Emergency
Health administration
Humans
Internal Medicine
Quality Assurance, Health Care
Safety
title Analyzing Communication Errors in an Air Medical Transport Service
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-04T02%3A05%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Analyzing%20Communication%20Errors%20in%20an%20Air%20Medical%20Transport%20Service&rft.jtitle=Air%20medical%20journal&rft.au=Dalto,%20Joseph%20D.,%20MS&rft.date=2013-05&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=129&rft.epage=137&rft.pages=129-137&rft.issn=1067-991X&rft.eissn=1532-6497&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.amj.2012.10.019&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1347787069%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1347787069&rft_id=info:pmid/23632221&rft_els_id=S1067991X12003331&rfr_iscdi=true