A Multisite Validity Study of Self-Reported Anesthesia Outcomes

Peter Walker, Renee Pekmezaris, Martin L. Lesser, Christian N. Nouryan, Frank Rosinia, Kathy Pratt, Catherine LaVopa

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Scopus citations


The purpose of this study was to assess the validity of a multisite anesthesia voluntary adverse event reporting process. A data validation methodology was used through medical chart review on live records at 3 facilities (N = 600). The per-item aggregated error rate among all 42 data items was 0.3%: 0.1% for quality indicators, 1.3% for demographic/status variables, and 1.7% for administrative items. The per-patient error rate among all 42 data items was 6.3%: 3.0% for quality indicators, 1.7% for demographic/status variables, and 3.0% for administrative items. Trends such as better accuracy for more serious events continue, but observed error rates were lower than those found in previous surveys-an indication that, while further study is needed, nonpunitive voluntary reporting may reduce errors in anesthesia care.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)417-425
Number of pages9
JournalAmerican Journal of Medical Quality
Issue number5
StatePublished - Sep 2012


  • anesthesia
  • incident reporting and analysis
  • quality improvement
  • teamwork


Dive into the research topics of 'A Multisite Validity Study of Self-Reported Anesthesia Outcomes'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this