Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34846195›Full record

ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2022

How to WHO: lessons from aviation in checklists and debriefs.

I A Guy, R L Kerstein, P A Brennan

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

I A GuyUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, UK.
R L KersteinOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, UK.
P A BrennanPortsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust, UK.
Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBPortsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust · GBUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AviationPilotsChecklistHumansPatient SafetyWorld Health OrganizationAviationChecklistHuman factorsPatient safetyWHO

Identifiers

PMID34846195
PMCPMC9246552
OpenAlexW3217548419

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.