Information technologies and key components for ensuring patient safety in anesthesiology and intensive care units with different levels of digitalization (message 3)

The objective was to assess the relationship between the implementation of information technologies in the work of anesthesiology and intensive care services of multidisciplinary hospitals and the severity of the leading components of patient safety at different levels of digitalization.

Materials and methods. Expert assessment of the level of digitalization and the effectiveness of using new medical information technologies in the system of the anesthesiology and intensive care service (department) of 235 multidisciplinary hospitals, including an assessment of the leading components of patient safety at different levels of digitalization. Statistical analysis of data distribution, Student’s t-test for independent samples.

Result. It has been established that the majority (47.7%) of anesthesiology and intensive care units (AICU) of multidisciplinary hospitals in the Russian Federation are at the average (sufficient) level of digitalization. Relatively few (19.2%) AICU of multidisciplinary hospitals are at a high and sufficiently high level in terms of digitalization. At the same time, each of the levels of digitalization of the AICU of multidisciplinary hospitals has a close relationship with the severity of the main components of ensuring the safety of patients in the departments.

Conclusion. Comparison (correlation) of the level of digitalization and components of patient safety of the AICU of multidisciplinary hospitals showed their fairly close and direct relationship. The study confirms that the effectiveness of ensuring patient safety of the AICU of multidisciplinary hospitals is associated, first of all, with a high level of digitalization as an important integral process for ensuring the quality of specialized medical care.

1. Gorban V. I. Components, criteria and levels of the patient safety system of the Department of Anesthesiology-intensive care of a multidisciplinary hospital (Message 1). Bulletin of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, 2024, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 64–69. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.24884/2078-5658-2024-21-2-64-69.

2. Gorban V. I. Assessment of the levels of formation and leading components of the patient safety system of the anesthesiology and resuscitation service (Message 2). Bulletin of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, 2024, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 87–92. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.24884/2078-5658-2024-21-3-87-92.

3. Gorban V. I., Shchegolev A. V., Protsenko D. N. et al. Digitalization of anesthesiology and resuscitation services: multicenter questionnaire study. Bulletin of intensive therapy named after A. I. Saltanov, 2024, no. 2, pp. 43–53. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21320/1818-474x-2024-2-43-53.

4. Kabanova T. A., Degtyarev P. A., Shkerdina M. I. and others. Helsinki Declaration on patient Safety in the provision of anesthesiological care – Russian experience: a questionnaire study. Bulletin of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, 2022, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 69–79. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21292/2078-5658-2022-19-4-69-79.

5. Karpov О. E., Gusarov V. G., Zamytin M. N. Didital solutions integration into the anesthesiology service of a multidisciplinary clinic. Bulletin Pirogov National Medical and Surgical Center, 2020, vol. 15, no. 3, part 2, pp. 106–113. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10/25881/bpnmsc.2020. 33.66.

6. Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 3980-r dated December 29, 2021 “On approval of the strategic direction in the field of digital transformation of healthcare” URL: https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_405736/ (accessed: 22.01.2024). (In Russ.).

7. DiCuccio M. H. The relationship between patient safety culture and patient outcomes: A Systematic review. J. Patient Saf, 2015, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 135–142. https://doi.org/10.1097/pts.0000000000000058.

8. Haggstrom M., Holmstrom M., Jong M. Establishing Patient safety in Intensive Care – a groundet theory. Open J of nursing, 2017, no. 7, pp. 1157–1171. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojn.2017.710084.

9. Lees N., Hall R. Information technology in anaesthesia and critical care. Continuing Education in Anaesth Critical Care & Pain, 2011, no. 11, pp. 104–107. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjaceaccp/mkr004.

10. Mellin-Olsen J., Staender S., Whitaker D. K. et al. The Helsinki Declaration on Patient Safety in Anaesthesiology. Eur. J. Anaesthesiol, 2010, vol. 27, no. 7, pp. 592–597. https://doi.org/10/1097/eja.0b013e32833b1adf.

11. Peden C. J., Campbell M., Aggarwal G. Quality, safety, and outcomes in anaesthesia: What’s to be done? An international perspective. Br. J. Anaesth, 2017, vol. 119, Suppl. S1, pp. i5–i14. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aex346.

12. Preckel B., Staender S., Arnal D. et al. Ten years of the Helsinki Declaration on patient safety in anaesthesiology: An expert opinion on peri-operative safety aspects. Eur. J. Anaesthesiol, 2020, vol. 37, no. 7, pp. 521–610. https://doi.org/10.1097/eja0000000000001244.

13. Warner M. A., Arnal D., Cole D. J. end al. Anesthesia patient safety: next steps to improve worldwide perioperative safety by 2030. Anesth Analg, 2022, vol. 135, no. 1, pp. 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1212/ane.0000000000006028.

14. Wu H. H. L., Lewis S. R., Cikkelová M. et al. Patient safety and the role of the Helsinki Declaration on Patient Safety in Anaesthesiology: A European survey. Eur. J. Anaesthesiol, 2019, vol. 36, no. 12, pp. 946–954. https://doi.org/10/1097/0000000000001043.

15. Seger C., Canesson M. Recent advances in the technology of anesthesia. F1000Res, 2020, no. 9 (F1000 Faculty Rev), pp. 375. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.24059.1.