María Elena Albarrán-Juan

Análisis de sentencias judiciales relativas a negligencias médicas emitidas contra traumatólogos entre 1995 y 2011

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Traumatology and Orthopaedic Surgery is one of the specialities with most complaints due to its scope and complexity. The aim of this study is to determine the characteristics of the complaints made against medical specialists in Traumatology, taking into account those variables that might have an influence both on the presenting of the complaint as well as on the resolving of the process. MATERIAL AND METHODS An analysis was performed on 303 legal judgments (1995-2011) collected in the health legal judgements archive of the Madrid School of Medicine, which is linked to the Westlaw Aranzadi data base. RESULTS Civil jurisdiction was the most used. The specific processes with most complaints were bone-joint disorders followed by vascular-nerve problems and infections. The injury claimed against most was in the lower limb, particularly the knee. The most frequent general cause of complaint was surgical treatment error, followed by diagnostic error. There was lack of information in 14.9%. There was sentencing in 49.8% of the cases, with compensation mainly being less than 50,000 euros. CONCLUSIONS Traumatology and Orthopaedic Surgery is a speciality prone to complaints due to malpractice. The number of sentences against traumatologists is high, but compensations are usually less than 50,000 euros. The main reason for sentencing is surgical treatment error; thus being the basic surgical procedure and where precautions should be maximised. The judgements due to lack of information are high, with adequate doctor-patient communication being essential as well as the correct completion of the informed consent.

Utility of Failure Mode and Effect Analysis to Improve Safety in Suctioning by Orotracheal Tube

Objective: The objective of the study was to use the Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) tool to analyze the technique of secretion suctioning on patients with an endotracheal tube who were admitted into an intensive care unit. Materials and Methods: Brainstorming was carried out within the service to determine the potential errors most frequent in the process. After this, the FMEA was applied, including its stages, prioritizing risk in accordance with the risk prioritization number (RPN), selecting improvement actions in which they have an RPN of more than 300. Results: We obtained 32 failure modes, of which 13 surpassed an RPN of 300. After our result, 21 improvement actions were proposed for those failure modes with RPN scores above 300. Conclusions: FMEA allows us to ascertain possible failures so as to later propose improvement actions for those which have an RPN of more than 300.