Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34732540›Full record

Observational studyBMJ open quality2021

Surgical safety checklist audits may be misleading! Improving the implementation and adherence of the surgical safety checklist: a quality improvement project.

Brigid Brown, Sophia Bermingham, Marthinus Vermeulen, Beth Jennings, Kirsty Adamek, Mark Markou, Jane E Bassham, Peter Hibbert

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMJ open quality, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Brigid BrownAnaesthesia, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, South Australia, Australia brigid.brown@gmail.com.
Sophia BerminghamAnaesthesia, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, South Australia, Australia.
Marthinus VermeulenAnaesthesia, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, South Australia, Australia.
Beth JenningsAnaesthesia, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, South Australia, Australia.
Kirsty AdamekAnaesthesia, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, South Australia, Australia.
Mark MarkouAnaesthesia, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, South Australia, Australia.
Jane E BasshamContinuous Improvement Unit, Southern Adelaide Local Health Network, Bedford Park, South Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0105-5719
Peter HibbertAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7865-343X
Flinders Medical Centre · AUAustralian Institute of Health and Welfare · AUFlinders University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite good quality evidence for benefits with its use, challenges have been encountered in the correct and consistent implementation of the surgical safety checklist (SSC). Previous studies of the SSC have reported a discrepancy between what is documented and what is observed in real time. A baseline observational audit at our institution demonstrated compliance of only 3.5% despite a documented compliance of 100%. This project used quality improvement principles of identifying the problem and designing strategies to improve staff compliance with the SSC. These included changing the SSC from paper-based to a reusable laminated form, a broad multidisciplinary education and marketing campaign, targeted coaching and modifying the implementation in response to ongoing staff feedback. Five direct observational audits were undertaken over four Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles to capture real-time information on staff compliance. Two staff surveys were also undertaken. Compliance with the SSC improved from 3.5% to 63% during this study. Staff reported they felt the new process improved patient safety and that the new SSC was easily incorporated into their workflow. Improving compliance with the SSC requires deep engagement with and cooperation of surgical, anaesthesia and nursing teams and understanding of their work practices and culture. The prospective observational audit highlighted an initial 3.5% compliance rate compared with 100% based on an audit of the patient notes. Relying solely on a retrospective paper-based model can lead to hospitals being unaware of significant safety and quality issues. While in-person prospective observations are more time-consuming and resource-consuming than retrospective audits, this study highlights their potential utility to gain a clear picture of actual events. The significant variation between documented and observed data may have considerable implications for other retrospective studies which rely on human-entered data for their results.

Indexed as

ChecklistQuality ImprovementHumansPatient SafetyProspective StudiesRetrospective Studieschecklistsclinical auditcontinuous quality improvementsafety cultureshared decision making

Identifiers

PMID34732540
PMCPMC8572456
OpenAlexW3208906830

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.