Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25038036›Full record

ArticleBMJ quality & safety2014

The WHO surgical safety checklist: survey of patients' views.

Stephanie Jane Russ, Shantanu Rout, Jochem Caris, Krishna Moorthy, Erik Mayer, Ara Darzi, Nick Sevdalis, Charles Vincent

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ quality & safety, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Tips and Tricks to Safely Perform an Endoscopic Endonasal Trans-Sphenoidal Pituitary Surgery: A Surgeon's Checklist.Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Stephanie Jane RussDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Shantanu RoutDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Jochem CarisDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Krishna MoorthyDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Erik MayerDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Ara DarziDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Nick SevdalisDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Charles VincentDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence suggests that full implementation of the WHO surgical safety checklist across NHS operating theatres is still proving a challenge for many surgical teams. The aim of the current study was to assess patients' views of the checklist, which have yet to be considered and could inform its appropriate use, and influence clinical buy-in.

methodPostoperative patients were sampled from surgical wards at two large London teaching hospitals. Patients were shown two professionally produced videos, one demonstrating use of the WHO surgical safety checklist, and one demonstrating the equivalent periods of their operation before its introduction. Patients' views of the checklist, its use in practice, and their involvement in safety improvement more generally were captured using a bespoke 19-item questionnaire.

results141 patients participated. Patients were positive towards the checklist, strongly agreeing that it would impact positively on their safety and on surgical team performance. Those worried about coming to harm in hospital were particularly supportive. Views were divided regarding hearing discussions around blood loss/airway before their procedure, supporting appropriate modifications to the tool. Patients did not feel they had a strong role to play in safety improvement more broadly.

conclusionsIt is feasible and instructive to capture patients' views of the delivery of safety improvements like the checklist. We have demonstrated strong support for the checklist in a sample of surgical patients, presenting a challenge to those resistant to its use.

Indexed as

ChecklistAdultAgedFemaleHumansLondonMaleMedical ErrorsMiddle AgedOperating RoomsPatient Care TeamPatient SafetyQuality Assurance, Health CareSurgical Procedures, OperativeSurveys and QuestionnairesWorld Health OrganizationAttitudesChecklistsPatient safetyQuality improvementSurgery

Identifiers

PMID25038036
PMCPMC4215340

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.