ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2022
How to WHO: lessons from aviation in checklists and debriefs.
Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Getting ON-TRAC, a team-centred design study of a reflexivity aid to support resuscitation teams' information sharing.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2025Article
- Error mitigation in forensic handwriting examination: the examiner's perspective.Forensic sciences research · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe World Health Organization (WHO) surgical safety checklist (SSC) has had an overall positive impact; however, it has not completely prevented adverse events and compliance with the checklist varies. The aviation industry is considered to have better engagement with their safety checklists, reporting not only safety improvements, but also a cultural shift in their checklist philosophy over recent years.
methodsWe explored the personal attitudes of pilots working in the aviation industry to identify principles of an effective checklist philosophy that could be transposed to the healthcare setting to empower more effective, consistent and ultimately successful implementation of the WHO SSC. A questionnaire was developed by the authors. Three airline pilots were interviewed via telephone, and asked questions regarding the logistics of and attitudes to checklists in the aviation industry.
resultsSeveral key factors for successful checklist implementation were identified. These include regular training and education on human factors and the checklist's purpose, and institution of an atmosphere that is receptive, engaged and welcoming. Much can be learned from the aviation industry, where not only has the incidence of adverse events decreased, but the attitudes of people working in the industry have also transformed.
conclusionThe WHO SSC is an invaluable tool used in healthcare settings worldwide. However, it is not a standalone commodity. To be effective, it necessitates steadfast engagement from the team members involved in its implementation. Human and checklist must work in partnership, using each other's strengths and fallibilities, to optimise outcomes and prevent risks to patient safety.
Indexed as
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.