ArticleBMC health services research2022
Development and validation of patients' surgical safety checklist.
Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07713147 (The Effect of the Patient Safety Checklist), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 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.
The Effect of the Patient Safety Checklist (PASC) on Surgical Patients' Satisfaction With Discharge Education and Communication Problems: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review on the frequency and quality of reporting patient and public involvement in patient safety research.BMC health services research · 2024Pooled it
- Effect of a patient-driven perioperative intervention on health literacy: A stepped-wedge cluster randomised sub-study.PloS one · 2026Trial
- Surgical patients' experiences with the Patients' Safety Checklist (PASC): a qualitative interview study.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Development of validated, context-specific patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) tools to enhance quality and patient safety in India.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Article
- Patient and family engagement interventions for enhancing patient safety in the perioperative journey: a scoping review.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Integrating general practitioners' and patients' perspectives in the development of a digital tool supporting primary care for older patients with multimorbidity: a focus group study.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Behavioral sciences applied to acute care teams: a research agenda for the years ahead by a European research network.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Feasibility of implementing a surgical patient safety checklist: prospective cross-sectional evaluation.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2023Article
- Healthcare Failure Mode and Effect Analysis in Surgery Setting: A Bibliometrics Analysis and Literature Review.Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPoor uptake and understanding of critical perioperative information represent a major safety risk for surgical patients. Implementing a patient-driven surgical safety checklist might enhance the way critical information is given and increase patient involvement in their own safety throughout the surgical pathway. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a Surgical Patient Safety Checklist (PASC) for use by surgical patients.
methodThis was a prospective study, involving patient representatives, multidisciplinary healthcare professionals and elective surgical patients to develop and validate PASC using consensus-building techniques in two Norwegian hospitals. A set of items intended for PASC were rated by patients and then submitted to Content Validation Index (CVI) analyses. Items of low CVI went through a Healthcare Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (HFMEA) Hazard Scoring process, as well as a consensus process before they were either kept or discarded. Reliability of patients' PASC ratings was assessed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient analysis. Lastly, the face validity of PASC was investigated through focus group interviews with postoperative patients.
resultsInitial development of PASC resulted in a checklist consisting of two parts, one before (32 items) and one after surgery (26 items). After achieving consensus on the PASC content, 215 surgical patients from six surgical wards rated the items for the CVI analysis on a 1-4 scale and mostly agreed on the content. Five items were removed from the checklist, and six items were redesigned to improve PASCs' user-friendliness. The total Scale-level index/Average (S-CVI/Ave) before revision was 0.83 and 0.86 for pre- and post-operative PASC items, respectively. Following revision, these increased to 0.86 and 0.93, respectively. The PASC items reliability score was 0.97 (95% confidence interval 0.96 to 0.98). The qualitative assessment identified that patients who used PASC felt more in control of their situation; this was achieved when PASC was given to them at what they felt was the right time and healthcare professionals took part in its usage.
conclusionMultidisciplinary perioperative care staff and surgical patients agreed upon PASC content, the checklist ratings were reliable, and qualitative assessment suggested good face validity. PASC appears to be a usable and valid checklist for elective surgical patients across specialties.
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.