RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: System factors contributing to preventable harm in vascular patients have not been previously reported in detail. The aim of this exploratory mixed-methods study was to describe vascular surgeons' perceptions of factors contributing to adverse events (AEs) in arterial surgery. A secondary aim was to report recommendations to improve patient safety. METHODS: Vascular consultants/registrars working in the British National Health Service were questioned about the causes of preventable AEs through survey and semi-structured interview (response rates 77% and 83%, respectively). Survey respondents considered a recent AE, indicating on a 5 point Likert scale the extent to which various factors from a validated framework contributed toward the incident. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to obtain detailed accounts of contributory factors, and to elicit recommendations to improve safety. RESULTS: Seventy-seven surgeons completed the survey on 77 separate AEs occurring during open surgery (n = 41) and in endovascular procedures (n = 36). Ten interviewees described 15 AEs. The causes of AEs were multifactorial (median number of factors/AE = 5, IQR 3-9, range 0-25). Factors frequently reported by survey respondents were communication failures (36.4%; n = 28/77); inadequate staffing levels/skill mix (32.5%; n = 25/77); lack of knowledge/skill (37.3%; n = 28/75). Themes emerging from interviews were team factors (communication failure, lack of team continuity, lack of clarity over roles/responsibilities); work environment factors (poor staffing levels, equipment problems, distractions); inadequate training/supervision. Knowledge/skill (p = .034) and competence (p = .018) appeared to be more prominent in causing AEs in open procedures compared with endovascular procedures; organisational structure was more frequently implicated in AEs occurring in endovascular procedures (p = .017). To improve safety, interviewees proposed team training programmes (5/10 interviewees); additional protocols/checklists (4/10); improved escalation procedures (3/10). CONCLUSION: Vascular surgeons believe that AEs in arterial operations are caused by multiple, modifiable system factors. Larger studies are needed to establish the relative importance of these factors and to determine strategies that can effectively address system failures.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Right-sided aortic arches are rare, affecting approximately 0.1% of the population. They are a result of abnormal development of the primitive aortic arches and may present later in life with later life with aneurysmal expansion of the aberrant left subclavian artery 'Kommerell's diverticulum'. These can be challenging to treat effectively. We report a rare case presenting with mild dysphagia and right-sided aneurysmal aortic arch with aneurysmal aberrant left-sided. The patient underwent hybrid endovascular repair incorporating bilateral carotid-subclavian bypasses and dual-arch-branch endograft placement to the left and right common carotid arteries. Although endovascular approaches have been described, there are no reports of branched endografts in this scenario. Right-sided aneurysmal aortic arch and the aneurysmal aberrant left subclavian artery are rare and represent a significant therapeutic challenge. Endovascular repair in conjunction with extra-anatomical bypass utilising a custom-made branched thoracic endograft is feasible.

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Integral to maintaining good outcomes post-endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is a robust surveillance protocol. A significant proportion of patients fail to comply with surveillance, exposing themselves to complications. We examine EVAR surveillance in Wessex (UK), exploring factors that may predict poor compliance. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 179 consecutive elective EVAR cases [2008-2013] was performed. 167 patients were male, with the age range of 50-95. Surveillance was conducted centrally (tertiary referral trauma centre) and at four spoke units. Surveillance compliance and predictors of non-compliance including age, gender, co-morbid status, residential location and socioeconomic status were analysed for univariate significance. RESULTS: Fifty patients (27.9 %) were non-compliant with surveillance; 14 (8.1 %) had no imaging post-EVAR. At 1 year, 56.1 % (of 123 patients) were compliant. At years 2 and 3, 41.5 and 41.2 % (of 65 and 34 patients, respectively) were compliant. Four years post-EVAR, only one of eight attended surveillance (12.5 %). There were no statistically significant differences in age (p = 0.77), co-morbid status or gender (p = 0.64). Distance to central unit (p = 0.67) and surveillance site (p = 0.56) was non-significant. While there was a trend towards compliance in upper-middle-class socioeconomic groups (ABC1 vs. C1C2D), correlating with >50 % of non-compliant patients living within <10 mile radius of the central unit, overall predictive value was not significant (p = 0.82). CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with surveillance post-EVAR is poor. No independent predictor of non-compliance has been confirmed, but socioeconomic status appears to be relevant. There is a worrying drop-off in attendance beyond the first year. This study highlights a problem that needs to be addressed urgently, if we are to maintain good outcomes post-EVAR.

Asunto(s)