Sources of medical error in refractive surgery

Majid Moshirfar, Rachel G. Simpson, Sonal B. Dave, Steven M. Christiansen, Jason N. Edmonds, William W Culbertson, Stephen E. Pascucci, Neal A. Sher, David B. Cano, William B. Trattler

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the causes of laser programming errors in refractive surgery and outcomes in these cases. METHODS: In this multicenter, retrospective chart review, 22 eyes of 18 patients who had incorrect data entered into the refractive laser computer system at the time of treatment were evaluated. Cases were analyzed to uncover the etiology of these errors, patient follow-up treatments, and fi nal outcomes. The results were used to identify potential methods to avoid similar errors in the future. RESULTS: Every patient experienced compromised uncorrected visual acuity requiring additional intervention, and 7 of 22 eyes (32%) lost corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) of at least one line. Sixteen patients were suitable candidates for additional surgical correction to address these residual visual symptoms and six were not. Thirteen of 22 eyes (59%) received surgical follow- up treatment; nine eyes were treated with contact lenses. After follow-up treatment, six patients (27%) still had a loss of one line or more of CDVA. Three signifi - cant sources of error were identifi ed: errors of cylinder conversion, data entry, and patient identifi cation error. CONCLUSION: Twenty-seven percent of eyes with laser programming errors ultimately lost one or more lines of CDVA. Patients who underwent surgical revision had better outcomes than those who did not. Many of the mistakes identifi ed were likely avoidable had preventive measures been taken, such as strict adherence to patient verifi cation protocol or rigorous rechecking of treatment parameters.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)303-310
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Refractive Surgery
Volume29
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2013

Fingerprint

Refractive Surgical Procedures
Medical Errors
Visual Acuity
Lasers
Cations
Therapeutics
Contact Lenses
Computer Systems
Patient Compliance
Reoperation
Research Design

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology
  • Surgery

Cite this

Moshirfar, M., Simpson, R. G., Dave, S. B., Christiansen, S. M., Edmonds, J. N., Culbertson, W. W., ... Trattler, W. B. (2013). Sources of medical error in refractive surgery. Journal of Refractive Surgery, 29(5), 303-310. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20130415-01

Sources of medical error in refractive surgery. / Moshirfar, Majid; Simpson, Rachel G.; Dave, Sonal B.; Christiansen, Steven M.; Edmonds, Jason N.; Culbertson, William W; Pascucci, Stephen E.; Sher, Neal A.; Cano, David B.; Trattler, William B.

In: Journal of Refractive Surgery, Vol. 29, No. 5, 01.05.2013, p. 303-310.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Moshirfar, M, Simpson, RG, Dave, SB, Christiansen, SM, Edmonds, JN, Culbertson, WW, Pascucci, SE, Sher, NA, Cano, DB & Trattler, WB 2013, 'Sources of medical error in refractive surgery', Journal of Refractive Surgery, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 303-310. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20130415-01
Moshirfar M, Simpson RG, Dave SB, Christiansen SM, Edmonds JN, Culbertson WW et al. Sources of medical error in refractive surgery. Journal of Refractive Surgery. 2013 May 1;29(5):303-310. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20130415-01
Moshirfar, Majid ; Simpson, Rachel G. ; Dave, Sonal B. ; Christiansen, Steven M. ; Edmonds, Jason N. ; Culbertson, William W ; Pascucci, Stephen E. ; Sher, Neal A. ; Cano, David B. ; Trattler, William B. / Sources of medical error in refractive surgery. In: Journal of Refractive Surgery. 2013 ; Vol. 29, No. 5. pp. 303-310.
@article{d393ad245ec240d89dd9a1079e82d016,
title = "Sources of medical error in refractive surgery",
abstract = "PURPOSE: To evaluate the causes of laser programming errors in refractive surgery and outcomes in these cases. METHODS: In this multicenter, retrospective chart review, 22 eyes of 18 patients who had incorrect data entered into the refractive laser computer system at the time of treatment were evaluated. Cases were analyzed to uncover the etiology of these errors, patient follow-up treatments, and fi nal outcomes. The results were used to identify potential methods to avoid similar errors in the future. RESULTS: Every patient experienced compromised uncorrected visual acuity requiring additional intervention, and 7 of 22 eyes (32{\%}) lost corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) of at least one line. Sixteen patients were suitable candidates for additional surgical correction to address these residual visual symptoms and six were not. Thirteen of 22 eyes (59{\%}) received surgical follow- up treatment; nine eyes were treated with contact lenses. After follow-up treatment, six patients (27{\%}) still had a loss of one line or more of CDVA. Three signifi - cant sources of error were identifi ed: errors of cylinder conversion, data entry, and patient identifi cation error. CONCLUSION: Twenty-seven percent of eyes with laser programming errors ultimately lost one or more lines of CDVA. Patients who underwent surgical revision had better outcomes than those who did not. Many of the mistakes identifi ed were likely avoidable had preventive measures been taken, such as strict adherence to patient verifi cation protocol or rigorous rechecking of treatment parameters.",
author = "Majid Moshirfar and Simpson, {Rachel G.} and Dave, {Sonal B.} and Christiansen, {Steven M.} and Edmonds, {Jason N.} and Culbertson, {William W} and Pascucci, {Stephen E.} and Sher, {Neal A.} and Cano, {David B.} and Trattler, {William B.}",
year = "2013",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3928/1081597X-20130415-01",
language = "English",
volume = "29",
pages = "303--310",
journal = "Journal of Refractive Surgery",
issn = "1081-597X",
publisher = "Slack Incorporated",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Sources of medical error in refractive surgery

AU - Moshirfar, Majid

AU - Simpson, Rachel G.

AU - Dave, Sonal B.

AU - Christiansen, Steven M.

AU - Edmonds, Jason N.

AU - Culbertson, William W

AU - Pascucci, Stephen E.

AU - Sher, Neal A.

AU - Cano, David B.

AU - Trattler, William B.

PY - 2013/5/1

Y1 - 2013/5/1

N2 - PURPOSE: To evaluate the causes of laser programming errors in refractive surgery and outcomes in these cases. METHODS: In this multicenter, retrospective chart review, 22 eyes of 18 patients who had incorrect data entered into the refractive laser computer system at the time of treatment were evaluated. Cases were analyzed to uncover the etiology of these errors, patient follow-up treatments, and fi nal outcomes. The results were used to identify potential methods to avoid similar errors in the future. RESULTS: Every patient experienced compromised uncorrected visual acuity requiring additional intervention, and 7 of 22 eyes (32%) lost corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) of at least one line. Sixteen patients were suitable candidates for additional surgical correction to address these residual visual symptoms and six were not. Thirteen of 22 eyes (59%) received surgical follow- up treatment; nine eyes were treated with contact lenses. After follow-up treatment, six patients (27%) still had a loss of one line or more of CDVA. Three signifi - cant sources of error were identifi ed: errors of cylinder conversion, data entry, and patient identifi cation error. CONCLUSION: Twenty-seven percent of eyes with laser programming errors ultimately lost one or more lines of CDVA. Patients who underwent surgical revision had better outcomes than those who did not. Many of the mistakes identifi ed were likely avoidable had preventive measures been taken, such as strict adherence to patient verifi cation protocol or rigorous rechecking of treatment parameters.

AB - PURPOSE: To evaluate the causes of laser programming errors in refractive surgery and outcomes in these cases. METHODS: In this multicenter, retrospective chart review, 22 eyes of 18 patients who had incorrect data entered into the refractive laser computer system at the time of treatment were evaluated. Cases were analyzed to uncover the etiology of these errors, patient follow-up treatments, and fi nal outcomes. The results were used to identify potential methods to avoid similar errors in the future. RESULTS: Every patient experienced compromised uncorrected visual acuity requiring additional intervention, and 7 of 22 eyes (32%) lost corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) of at least one line. Sixteen patients were suitable candidates for additional surgical correction to address these residual visual symptoms and six were not. Thirteen of 22 eyes (59%) received surgical follow- up treatment; nine eyes were treated with contact lenses. After follow-up treatment, six patients (27%) still had a loss of one line or more of CDVA. Three signifi - cant sources of error were identifi ed: errors of cylinder conversion, data entry, and patient identifi cation error. CONCLUSION: Twenty-seven percent of eyes with laser programming errors ultimately lost one or more lines of CDVA. Patients who underwent surgical revision had better outcomes than those who did not. Many of the mistakes identifi ed were likely avoidable had preventive measures been taken, such as strict adherence to patient verifi cation protocol or rigorous rechecking of treatment parameters.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84877943222&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84877943222&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3928/1081597X-20130415-01

DO - 10.3928/1081597X-20130415-01

M3 - Article

VL - 29

SP - 303

EP - 310

JO - Journal of Refractive Surgery

JF - Journal of Refractive Surgery

SN - 1081-597X

IS - 5

ER -