Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26793274›Full record

ArticlePatient safety in surgery2016

Factors that drive team participation in surgical safety checks: a prospective study.

Brigid M Gillespie, Teresa K Withers, Joanne Lavin, Therese Gardiner, Andrea P Marshall

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient safety in surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Developing Implementation Strategies for the Adoption of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Protocols: A Co-Design Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

5 authors.

Brigid M GillespieNHMRC Centre for Research Excellence in Nursing (NCREN), Centre for Health Practice Innovation (HPI), Menzies Health Institute Qld (MHIQ), Griffith University, Parklands Drive, Gold Coast Campus, Gold Coast, QLD 4222 Australia.
Teresa K WithersGold Coast University Hospital, Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service, 1 Hospital Boulevard, Southport, QLD 4215 Australia.
Joanne LavinGold Coast University Hospital, Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service, 1 Hospital Boulevard, Southport, QLD 4215 Australia.
Therese GardinerGold Coast University Hospital, Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service, 1 Hospital Boulevard, Southport, QLD 4215 Australia.
Andrea P MarshallNHMRC Centre for Research Excellence in Nursing (NCREN), Centre for Health Practice Innovation (HPI), Menzies Health Institute Qld (MHIQ), Griffith University, Parklands Drive, Gold Coast Campus, Gold Coast, QLD 4222 Australia ; Gold Coast University Hospital, Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service, 1 Hospital Boulevard, Southport, QLD 4215 Australia ; School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus, Nathan, QLD 4222 Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTeam-based group communications using checklists are widely advocated to achieve shared understandings and improve patient safety. Despite the positive effect checklists have on collaborations and reduced postoperative complications, their use has not been straightforward. Previous research has described contextual factors that impact on the implementation of checklists, however there is limited understanding of the issues that impede team participation in checklist use in surgery. The aim of this prospective study was to identify and describe factors that drive team participation in safety checks in surgery.

methodsWe observed ten surgical teams and conducted 33 semi-structured interviews with 70 participants from nursing, surgery and anaesthetics, and the community. Constant comparative methods were used to analyse textual data derived from field notes and interviews. Observational and interview data were collected during 2014-15.

resultsAnalysis of the textual data generated from the field notes and interviews revealed the extent to which members of the surgical team participated in using the surgical safety checklist during each phase of patient care. These three categories included: 'using the checklist'; 'working independently'; and, 'communicating checks with others'. The phases in the checking process most vulnerable to information loss or omission were sign in and sign out.

conclusionsTeam participation in safety checks depends on a convergence of intertwined factors; namely, team attributes, communication strategies and checking processes. A whole-of-team approach to participation in surgical safety checks is far more complex when considering the factors that drive participation. Strategies to increase participation in safety checks need to target professional communication practices and work processes such as workflow which curtail team members' ability to participate.

Identifiers

PMID26793274
PMCPMC4719703

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.