ArticleBJS open2018
Development of the Surgical Patient safety Observation Tool (SPOT).
Article in BJS open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prospective methods for identifying perioperative risk-assessment methods for patient safety over 20 years: a systematic review.BJS open · 2020Pooled it
- Perioperative patient safety: nurses' safety perceptions and observed compliance with safety standards in the operating room.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a Self-assessment Instrument for Perioperative Patient Safety (SIPPS).BJS open · 2018Article
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
backgroundA Surgical Patient safety Observation Tool (SPOT) was developed and tested in a multicentre observational pilot study. The tool enables monitoring and benchmarking perioperative safety performance across departments and hospitals, covering international patient safety goals.
methodsNineteen perioperative patient safety observation topics were selected from Dutch perioperative patient safety guidelines, which also cover international patient safety goals. All items that measured these selected topics were then extracted from available local observation checklists of the participating hospitals. Experts individually prioritized the best measurement items per topic in an initial written Delphi round. The second (face to face) Delphi round resulted in consensus on the content of SPOT, after which the measurable elements (MEs) per topic were defined. Finally, the tool was piloted in eight hospitals for measurability, applicability, improvement potential, discriminatory capacity and feasibility.
resultsThe pilot test showed good measurability for all 19 patient safety topics (range of 8-291 MEs among topics), with good applicability (median 97 (range 11·8-100) per cent). The overall improvement potential appeared to be good (median 89 (range 72·5-100) per cent), and at topic level the tool showed good discriminatory capacity (variation 27·5 per cent, range in compliance 72·5-100 per cent). Overall scores showed relatively little variation between the participating hospitals (variation 13 per cent, range in compliance 83-96 per cent). All eight auditors considered SPOT a straightforward and easy-to-use tracer tool.
conclusionA comprehensive tool to measure safety of care was developed and validated using a systematic, stepwise method, enabling hospitals to monitor, benchmark and improve perioperative safety performance.
Identifiers
What 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.