 |
|
Wrong-Site Surgery—Reply
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
In reply
We thank Dr Rothman for his letter. By reporting that wrong-site surgery is rare, we do not intend to rationalize this error nor de-emphasize efforts to prevent it. Wrong-site surgery remains unacceptable, and recognizing the incidence does not change this. Surgical teams have an enormous variety of potential errors to prevent—ranging from technical errors to technological malfunctions to retained instruments and sponges—and understanding their relative frequency is essential to planning effective interventions.
We agree that standardization of practices is an important strategy. However, what the best standard would be is unclear because rare errors are difficult to study and poorly understood. Contrary to Dr Rothman's assertions, we did find useful information about wrong-site surgery protocols implemented under recent guidelines from the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. Among the 16 hospital site–verification protocols we studied, there was wide variation in the methods of site marking and in . . . [Full Text of this Article]
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Mary R. Kwaan, MD, MPH;
David Studdert, LLB, ScD;
Michael J. Zinner, MD;
Atul A. Gawande, MD, MPH
 CiteULike  Connotea  Delicious  Digg  Facebook  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLES
Wrong-Site Surgery
Glenn Rothman
Arch Surg. 2006;141(10):1049-1050.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Incidence, Patterns, and Prevention of Wrong-Site Surgery
Mary R. Kwaan, David M. Studdert, Michael J. Zinner, and Atul A. Gawande
Arch Surg. 2006;141(4):353-358.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
