Objective-To identify Emergency Medical Services (EMS) provider perceptions of factors that may affect the occurrence, identification, reporting, and reduction of near misses and adverse events in the pediatric EMS patient.Methods-This was a subgroup analysis of a qualitative study examining the nature of near misses and adverse events in EMS as it relates to pediatric prehospital care. Complimentary qualitative methods of focus groups, interviews, and anonymous event reporting were used to collect results and emerging themes were identified and assigned to specific analytic domains.Results-Eleven anonymous event reports, 17 semi-structured interviews, and 2 focus groups identified 61 total events, of which 12 (20%) were child-related. Eight (66%) of those were characterized by participants as having resulted in no injury, 2 (16%) resulted in potential injury, and 2 (16%) involved an ultimate fatality. Three analytic domains were identified which included the following five themes: reporting is uncommon, blaming errors on others, provider stress/discomfort, errors of omission, and limited training. Among perceived causes of events, participants noted factors relating to management problems specific to pediatrics, problems with procedural skill performance, medication problems/calculation errors, improper equipment size, parental interference, and omission of treatment related to providers' discomfort with the patient's age. Few participants spoke about errors they had themselves committed; most discussions centered on errors participants observed being made by others.Conclusions-It appears that adverse events and near misses in the pediatric EMS environment may go unreported in a large proportion of cases. Participants attributed the occurrence of errors to the stress and anxiety produced by a lack of familiarity with pediatric patients and to a reluctance to cause pain or potential harm, as well as to inadequate practical training and experience in caring for the pediatric population. Errors of omission, rather than those of commission, were perceived to predominate. This study provides a foundation on which to base additional studies of both qualitative * Note: Dr. O'Gara is now with Rochester General Hospital, Rochester, NY, and Dr. Pennington is now with Boston University/Boston Medical Center Department of Surgery, Boston, MA. and quantitative nature that will shed further light on the factors contributing to the occurrence, reporting, and mitigation of adverse events and near misses in the pediatric EMS setting.

No abstract

Objectives: The objectives were to examine the perceptions of emergency medical services (EMS) providers regarding near-misses and adverse events in out-of-hospital care.Methods: This study uses qualitative methods (focus groups, interviews, event reporting) to examine the perceptions of EMS providers regarding near-misses and adverse events in out-of-hospital care. Results were reviewed by five researchers; analytic domains were assigned and emerging themes were identified. Descriptive statistics were calculated.Results: Fifteen in-depth interviews (73% advanced life support [ALS], 40% volunteer, and 87% male) resulted in 50 event descriptions. Eleven additional event reports were obtained from the anonymous reporting system. Of the 61 total events, 27 (44%) were near-misses and 34 (56%) were adverse events. Fourteen (23%) involved a child (<19 years). Types of error included 33 clinical judgment (54%), 13 skill performance (21%), 9 medication event (15%), 3 destination choice (5%), and 3 others (5%). For the 21 cases where the provider discussed the event, 10 (48%) were reported to a physician, and 9 (43%) to a supervisor; 4 (19%) were not reported, and none were reported to the patient. Focus groups supported interview and event report data. Emerging themes included a focus on the errors of others and a ''blame-and-shame'' culture.Conclusions: Adverse events and near-misses were common among the EMS providers who participated in this study, but the culture discourages sharing of this information. Participants attributed many events to systems issues and to inadequacies of other provider groups. Further study is necessary to investigate whether these hypothesis-generating themes are generalizable to the EMS community as a whole.ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2008; 15:633-640 ª