Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2017
What is the value of the SAGES/AORN MIS checklist? A multi-institutional practical assessment.
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- What delays your case start? Exploring operating room inefficiencies.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgical safety checklists reduce perioperative complications and mortality. Given that minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is dependent on technology and vulnerable to equipment failure, SAGES and AORN partnered to create a MIS checklist to optimize case flow and minimize errors. The aim of this project was to evaluate the effectiveness of the SAGES/AORN checklist in preventing disruptions and determine its ease of use.
methodsThe checklist was implemented across four institutions and completed by the operating team. To assess its effectiveness, we recorded how often the checklist identified problems and how frequently each of the 45 checklist items were not completed. The perceived usefulness, ease of use, and frustration associated with checklist use were rated on a 5-point Likert scale by the surgeon. We assessed any differences dependent on timing of checklist completion and among institutions.
resultsThe checklist was performed during MIS procedures (n = 114). When used before the procedure (n = 36), the checklist identified missing items in 13 cases (36.11 %). When used after the procedure (n = 61), the checklist identified missing items in 18 cases (29.51 %) that caused a delay of 4.1 ± 11.1 min. The most frequently missed items included preference card review (14.0 %), readiness of the carbon dioxide insufflator (8.7 %), and availability of the Veress needle (3.6 %). The checklist took an average of 3.6 ± 2.7 min to complete with its usefulness rated 2.6 ± 1.5, ease of use 2.0 ± 1.2, and frustration 1.3 ± 1.1.
conclusionThe checklist identified problems in 24 % of cases that led to preventable delays. The checklist was easy to complete and not frustrating, indicating it could improve operative flow. This study also identified the most useful items which may help abbreviate the checklist, minimizing the frustration and time taken to complete it while maximizing its utility. These attributes of the SAGES/AORN MIS checklist should be explored in future larger-scale studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27604364What OpenQuestion holds
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.