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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Air medical journal 2013-05, Vol.32 (3), p.129-137 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
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 |