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. 141 No. 4, April 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Paper
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on ISI (14)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related letters
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Quality of Care, Other
 •Surgery, Other
 •Alert me on articles by topic

Incidence, Patterns, and Prevention of Wrong-Site Surgery

Mary R. Kwaan, MD, MPH; David M. Studdert, LLB, ScD; Michael J. Zinner, MD; Atul A. Gawande, MD, MPH

Arch Surg. 2006;141:353-358.

Hypothesis  We hypothesized that wrong-site surgery is infrequent and that a substantial proportion of such incidents are not preventable by current site-verification protocols.

Design  Case series and survey of site-verification protocols.

Setting  Hospitals and a malpractice liability insurer.

Patients and Other Participants  All wrong-site surgery cases reported to a large malpractice insurer between 1985 and 2004.

Main Outcome Measures  Incidence, characteristics, and causes of wrong-site surgery and characteristics of site-verification protocols.

Results  Among 2 826 367 operations at insured institutions during the study period, 25 nonspine wrong-site operations were identified, producing an incidence of 1 in 112 994 operations (95% confidence interval, 1 in 76 336 to 1 in 174 825). Medical records were available for review in 13 cases. Among reviewed claims, patient injury was permanent-significant in 1, temporary-major in 2, and temporary-minor or temporary-insignificant in 10. Under optimal conditions, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations Universal Protocol might have prevented 8 (62%) of 13 cases. Hospital protocol design varied significantly. The protocols mandated 2 to 4 personnel to perform 12 separate operative-site checks on average (range, 5-20). Five protocols required site marking in cases that involved nonmidline organs or structures; 6 required it in all cases.

Conclusions  Wrong-site surgery is unacceptable but exceedingly rare, and major injury from wrong-site surgery is even rarer. Current site-verification protocols could have prevented only two thirds of the examined cases. Many protocols involve considerable complexity without clear added benefit.


Author Affiliations: Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital (Drs Kwaan, Zinner, and Gawande), and Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health (Drs Kwaan, Studdert, and Gawande), Boston, Mass.


RELATED LETTERS

Wrong-Site Surgery
Glenn Rothman
Arch Surg. 2006;141(10):1049-1050.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Wrong-Site Surgery—Reply
Mary R. Kwaan, David Studdert, Michael J. Zinner, and Atul A. Gawande
Arch Surg. 2006;141(10):1050.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Surgical Confusions in Ophthalmology
Simon et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 2007;125:1515-1522.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Wrong-Site Surgery
Rothman
Arch Surg 2006;141:1049-1050.
FULL TEXT  

Wrong-Site Surgery--Reply
Kwaan et al.
Arch Surg 2006;141:1050-1050.
FULL TEXT  

Wrong-Side/Wrong-Site, Wrong-Procedure, and Wrong-Patient Adverse Events: Are They Preventable?
Seiden and Barach
Arch Surg 2006;141:931-939.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2006 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.