Recording Medical Errors in Brain Tumor Surgery Can Facilitate Their Avoidance: Single Institution Comparative Cohort Analysis over 19 Years

Objectives: Error-tracking studies have become an invaluable tool for gaining deeper insights into the patterns, causes, and clinical consequences of errors. In this paper, we examine the long-term impact of analyzing errors at the level of an individual surgeon. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of an internally maintained prospective database from September 2013 to April 2019 (Group C). These variables were compared with two earlier cohorts: Group A (2000–2006) and Group B (2006–2013). The key endpoints assessed included error incidence, type, severity, preventability, and clinical impact. The study also investigated the potential seasonal variations in error incidence, considering the rotation of trainees. Results: A persistent decrease in the mean errors/case (across all types) since records began in 2000 was noted; (1.8 for study group C versus 1.9 and 2.4 for group B and group A respectively, p = 0.048). We observed a drop in error severity score (major errors of 17.5% versus 29.5% and 22.6% respectively, p < 0.00001) and clinical impact (high impact in 0.4% versus 1.0% and 2.7% respectively, p < 0.00001). Conclusions: Ongoing and systematic error tracking and analysis seem to have a lasting impact on reducing both the incidence and severity of errors. These positive outcomes are thought to reflect the establishment of a culture of safety, fostering transparency and constructive feedback within the broader surgical team.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Current Oncology
Published
2026-05-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol33050281
Primary Topic
Patient Safety and Medication Errors
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Recording Medical Errors in Brain Tumor Surgery Can Facilitate Their Avoidance: Single Institution Comparative Cohort Analysis over 19 Years

Ashkan Samienezhad, Patrick E. Steadman, Mohammed J. Asha, Mark Bernstein
Current Oncology
Patient Safety and Medication Errors
article

Recording Medical Errors in Brain Tumor Surgery Can Facilitate Their Avoidance: Single Institution Comparative Cohort Analysis over 19 Years

Ashkan Samienezhad, Patrick E. Steadman, Mohammed J. Asha, Mark Bernstein
article en

Abstract

Objectives: Error-tracking studies have become an invaluable tool for gaining deeper insights into the patterns, causes, and clinical consequences of errors. In this paper, we examine the long-term impact of analyzing errors at the level of an individual surgeon. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of an internally maintained prospective database from September 2013 to April 2019 (Group C). These variables were compared with two earlier cohorts: Group A (2000–2006) and Group B (2006–2013). The key endpoints assessed included error incidence, type, severity, preventability, and clinical impact. The study also investigated the potential seasonal variations in error incidence, considering the rotation of trainees. Results: A persistent decrease in the mean errors/case (across all types) since records began in 2000 was noted; (1.8 for study group C versus 1.9 and 2.4 for group B and group A respectively, p = 0.048). We observed a drop in error severity score (major errors of 17.5% versus 29.5% and 22.6% respectively, p < 0.00001) and clinical impact (high impact in 0.4% versus 1.0% and 2.7% respectively, p < 0.00001). Conclusions: Ongoing and systematic error tracking and analysis seem to have a lasting impact on reducing both the incidence and severity of errors. These positive outcomes are thought to reflect the establishment of a culture of safety, fostering transparency and constructive feedback within the broader surgical team.

Current OncologyVol. 33(5)
University Health Network (CA), Toronto Western Hospital (CA)
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Patient Safety and Medication Errors
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.