Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25658317›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Implementation of a surgical safety checklist: interventions to optimize the process and hints to increase compliance.

Gerald Sendlhofer, Nina Mosbacher, Leitgeb Karina, Brigitte Kober, Lydia Jantscher, Andrea Berghold, Gudrun Pregartner, Gernot Brunner, Lars Peter Kamolz

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT05798000 (Effect of WHO Surgical Safety Checklist and Anaesthesia Equipment Checklist on Patients Outcomes in Low-resource Settings.), which is not on this map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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.

NCT05798000 completednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Effect of WHO Surgical Safety Checklist and Anaesthesia Equipment Checklist on Patients Outcomes in Low-resource Settings.

TypeobservationalSponsorBogomolets National Medical UniversityRan2022 to 2022Enrolled2,200ConditionsSafety Issues
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Safe surgery checklist: evaluation in a neotropical region.Revista do Colegio Brasileiro de Cirurgioes · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. WHO safe surgery checklist: Barriers to universal acceptance.Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Gerald SendlhoferExecutive Department for Quality and Risk Management, University Hospital Graz, Graz, Austria; Division of Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria.
Nina MosbacherDivision of Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria.
Leitgeb KarinaExecutive Department for Quality and Risk Management, University Hospital Graz, Graz, Austria.
Brigitte KoberExecutive Department for Quality and Risk Management, University Hospital Graz, Graz, Austria.
Lydia JantscherExecutive Department for Quality and Risk Management, University Hospital Graz, Graz, Austria.
Andrea BergholdInstitute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Documentation, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria.
Gudrun PregartnerInstitute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Documentation, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria.
Gernot BrunnerUniversity Hospital Graz, Graz, Austria.
Lars Peter KamolzDivision of Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA surgical safety checklist (SSC) was implemented and routinely evaluated within our hospital. The purpose of this study was to analyze compliance, knowledge of and satisfaction with the SSC to determine further improvements.

methodsThe implementation of the SSC was observed in a pilot unit. After roll-out into each operating theater, compliance with the SSC was routinely measured. To assess subjective and objective knowledge, as well as satisfaction with the SSC implementation, an online survey (N = 891) was performed.

resultsDuring two test runs in a piloting unit, 305 operations were observed, 175 in test run 1 and 130 in test run 2. The SSC was used in 77.1% of all operations in test run 1 and in 99.2% in test run 2. Within used SSCs, completion rates were 36.3% in test run 1 and 1.6% in test run 2. After roll-out, three unannounced audits took place and showed that the SSC was used in 95.3%, 91.9% and 89.9%. Within used SSCs, completion rates decreased from 81.7% to 60.6% and 53.2%. In 2014, 164 (18.4%) operating team members responded to the online survey, 160 of which were included in the analysis. 146 (91.3%) consultants and nursing staff reported to use the SSC regularly in daily routine.

conclusionThese data show that the implementation of new tools such as the adapted WHO SSC needs constant supervision and instruction until it becomes self-evident and accepted. Further efforts, consisting mainly of hands-on leadership and training are necessary.

Indexed as

ChecklistGuideline AdherenceAustriaOperating RoomsSurgery Department, HospitalSurgical Procedures, OperativeSurveys and QuestionnairesTertiary Care Centers

Identifiers

PMID25658317
PMCPMC4319744

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.