Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36284293›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2022

Using i-PARIHS to assess implementation of the Surgical Safety Checklist: an international qualitative study.

Meagan E Elam, Christopher J Louis, Mary E Brindle, Jonathan Woodson, Jacey A Greece

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Systematic recording and discussion of intraoperative adverse events using ClassIntra: results of a qualitative context analysis before implementation.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Adapting the World Health Organization's Surgical Safety Checklist to High-Income Settings: A Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation Trial Protocol.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2024
    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

5 authors.

Meagan E ElamBoston University School of Public Health, 715 Albany St, Boston, MA, 02118, USA. meagan.elam@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7341-1957
Christopher J LouisBoston University School of Public Health, 715 Albany St, Boston, MA, 02118, USA.
Mary E BrindleAriadne Labs, 401 Park Dr 3rd Floor, Boston, MA, 02215, USA.
Jonathan WoodsonBoston University School of Public Health, 715 Albany St, Boston, MA, 02118, USA.
Jacey A GreeceBoston University School of Public Health, 715 Albany St, Boston, MA, 02118, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStrategies selected to implement the WHO's Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) are key factors in its ability to improve patient safety. Underutilization of implementation frameworks for informing implementation processes hinders our understanding of the checklists' varying effectiveness in different contexts. This study explored the extent to which SSC implementation practices could be assessed through the i-PARIHS framework and examined how it could support development of targeted recommendations to improve SSC implementation in high-income settings.

methodsThis qualitative study utilized interviews with surgical team members and health administrators from five high-income countries to understand the key elements necessary for successful implementation of the SSC. Using thematic analysis, we identified within and across-case themes that were mapped to the i-PARIHS framework constructs. Gaps in current implementation strategies were identified, and the utility of i-PARIHS to guide future efforts was assessed.

resultsFifty-one multi-disciplinary clinicians and health administrators completed interviews. We identified themes that impacted SSC implementation in each of the four i-PARIHS constructs and several that spanned multiple constructs. Within innovation, a disconnect between the clinical outcomes-focused evidence in the literature and interviewees' patient-safety focus on observable results reduced the SSC's perceived relevance. Within recipients, existing surgical team hierarchies impacted checklist engagement, but this could be addressed through a shared leadership model. Within context, organizational priorities resulting in time pressures on surgical teams were at odds with SSC patient safety goals and reduced fidelity. At a health system level, employing surgical team members through the state or health region resulted in significant challenges in enforcing checklist use in private vs public hospitals. Within its facilitation construct, i-PARIHS includes limited definitions of facilitation processes. We identified using multiple interdisciplinary champions; establishing checklist performance feedback mechanisms; and modifying checklist processes, such as implementing a full-team huddle, as facilitators of successful SSC implementation.

conclusionThe i-PARIHS framework enabled a comprehensive assessment of current implementation strategies, identifying key gaps and allowed for recommending targeted improvements. i-PARIHS could serve as a guide for planning future SSC implementation efforts, however, further clarification of facilitation processes would improve the framework's utility.

trial registrationNo health care intervention was performed.

Indexed as

ChecklistPatient SafetyDelivery of Health CareHealth FacilitiesHumansQualitative ResearchImplementation strategiesi-PARIHS frameworkQuality and safetySurgical safety checklist

Identifiers

PMID36284293
PMCPMC9597976

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.