ArticleBJS open2018
Development and validation of a Self-assessment Instrument for Perioperative Patient Safety (SIPPS).
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, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Interventions to reduce the incidence of medical error and its financial burden in health care systems: A systematic review of systematic reviews.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Prospective methods for identifying perioperative risk-assessment methods for patient safety over 20 years: a systematic review.BJS open · 2020Pooled it
- Development of a Self-Assessment Audit Instrument to Support Climate-Conscious Community Pharmacy Practice and Education.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient safety is a fundamental value of healthcare to avoid patient harm. Non-compliance with patient safety standards may result in patient harm and is therefore a global concern. A Self-assessment Instrument for Perioperative Patient Safety (SIPPS) monitoring and benchmarking compliance to safety standards was validated in a multicentre pilot study.
methodsA preliminary questionnaire, based on the Dutch perioperative patient safety guidelines and covering international patient safety goals, was evaluated in a first digital RAND Delphi round. The results were used to optimize the questionnaire and design the SIPPS. For measurement and benchmarking purposes, SIPPS was categorized into seven main patient safety domains concerning all care episode phases of the perioperative trajectory. After consensus was reached in a face-to-face Delphi round, SIPPS was pilot-tested in five hospitals for five characteristics: measurability, applicability, improvement potential, discriminatory capacity and feasibility.
resultsThe results of the first Delphi round showed moderate feasibility for the preliminary questionnaire (81·6 per cent). The pilot test showed good measurability for SIPPS: 99·8 per cent of requested information was assessable. Some 99·9 per cent of SIPPS questions were applicable to the selected respondents. With SIPPS, room for improvement in perioperative patient safety compliance was demonstrated for all hospitals, concerning all safety domains and all care episode phases of the perioperative trajectory (compliance 76·1 per cent). SIPPS showed mixed results for discriminatory capacity. SIPPS showed good feasibility for all items (range 91·9-95·7 per cent).
conclusionA self-assessment instrument for measuring perioperative patient safety (SIPPS) compliance meeting international standards was validated. With SIPPS, improvement areas for perioperative patient safety and best practices across hospitals could be identified.
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.