Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26415946›Full record

ReviewImplementation science : IS2015

Implementation of safety checklists in surgery: a realist synthesis of evidence.

Brigid M Gillespie, Andrea Marshall

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Implementation science : IS, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Intervention Plan Quality Matters: Using COMPASS to Collaboratively Develop Student-Centered, Evidence-based Intervention Plans using an EBPP Approach.Journal of educational and psychological consultation : the official journal of the Association for Educational and Psychological Consultants · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors.

Brigid M GillespieNHMRC Centre for Research Excellence in Nursing (NCREN), Centre for Health Practice Innovation (HPI), Menzies Health Institute Qld (MHIQ), Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus, Gold Coast, QLD, 4222, Australia. b.gillespie@griffith.edu.au.
Andrea MarshallNHMRC Centre for Research Excellence in Nursing (NCREN), Centre for Health Practice Innovation (HPI), Menzies Health Institute Qld (MHIQ), Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus, Gold Coast, QLD, 4222, Australia. a.marshall@griffith.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThe aim of this review is to present a realist synthesis of the evidence of implementation interventions to improve adherence to the use of safety checklists in surgery.

backgroundSurgical safety checklists have been shown to improve teamwork and patient safety in the operating room. Yet, despite the benefits associated with their use, universal implementation of and compliance with these checklists has been inconsistent. DATA SOURCES: An overview of the literature from 2008 is examined in relation to checklist implementation, compliance, and sustainability. REVIEW

methodsPawson's and Rycroft-Malone's realist synthesis methodology was used to explain the interaction between context, mechanism, and outcome. This approach incorporated the following: defining the scope of the review, searching and appraising the evidence, extracting and synthesising the findings, and disseminating, implementing, and evaluating the evidence. We identified two theories a priori that explained contextual nuances associated with implementation and evaluation of checklists in surgery: the Normalisation Process Theory and Responsive Regulation Theory.

resultsWe identified four a priori propositions: (1) Checklist protocols that are prospectively tailored to the context are more likely to be used and sustained in practice, (2) Fidelity and sustainability is increased when checklist protocols can be seamlessly integrated into daily professional practice, (3) Routine embedding of checklist protocols in practice is influenced by factors that promote or inhibit clinicians' participation, and (4) Regulation reinforcement mechanisms that are more contextually responsive should lead to greater compliance in using checklist protocols. The final explanatory model suggests that the sustained use of surgical checklists is discipline-specific and is more likely to occur when medical staff are actively engaged and leading the process of implementation. Involving clinicians in tailoring the checklist to better fit their context of practice and giving them the opportunity to reflect and evaluate the implementation intervention enables greater participation and ownership of the process.

conclusionsA major limitation in the surgical checklist literature is the lack of robust descriptions of intervention methods and implementation strategies. Despite this, two consequential findings have emerged through this realist synthesis: First, the sustained use of surgical checklists is discipline-specific and is more successful when physicians are actively engaged and leading implementation. Second, involving clinicians in tailoring the checklist to their context and encouraging them to reflect on and evaluate the implementation process enables greater participation and ownership.

Indexed as

Clinical ProtocolsDiffusion of InnovationPatient SafetyChecklistEvidence-Based MedicineHumansInservice TrainingLeadershipProgram EvaluationReinforcement, PsychologySurgical Procedures, Operative

Identifiers

PMID26415946
PMCPMC4587654

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.