Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37457099›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023

No signs of check-list fatigue - introducing the StOP? intra-operative briefing enhances the quality of an established pre-operative briefing in a pre-post intervention study.

Eliane Timm-Holzer, Franziska Tschan, Sandra Keller, Norbert K Semmer, Jasmin Zimmermann, Simon A Huber, Martin Hübner, Daniel Candinas, Nicolas Demartines, Markus Weber and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Eliane Timm-HolzerInstitute for Work and Organizational Psychology, University of Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel, Switzerland.
Franziska TschanInstitute for Work and Organizational Psychology, University of Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel, Switzerland.
Sandra KellerInstitute for Work and Organizational Psychology, University of Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel, Switzerland.
Norbert K SemmerDepartment of Psychology, University of Berne, Berne, Switzerland.
Jasmin ZimmermannInstitute for Work and Organizational Psychology, University of Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel, Switzerland.
Simon A HuberDepartment of Psychology, University of Berne, Berne, Switzerland.
Martin HübnerDepartment of Visceral Surgery, University Hospital Lausanne (CHUV), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Daniel CandinasDepartment of Visceral Surgery and Medicine, Berne University Hospital, University of Berne, Berne, Switzerland.
Nicolas DemartinesDepartment of Visceral Surgery, University Hospital Lausanne (CHUV), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Markus WeberDepartment of Surgery, Triemli Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland.
Guido BeldiDepartment of Visceral Surgery and Medicine, Berne University Hospital, University of Berne, Berne, Switzerland.
University of Bern · CHUniversity of Neuchâtel · CHUniversity Hospital of Bern · CHUniversity Hospital of Lausanne · CHTriemli Hospital · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The team timeout (TTO) is a safety checklist to be performed by the surgical team prior to incision. Exchange of critical information is, however, important not only before but also during an operation and members of surgical teams frequently feel insufficiently informed by the operating surgeon about the ongoing procedure. To improve the exchange of critical information during surgery, the StOP?-protocol was developed: At appropriate moments during the procedure, the leading surgeon briefly interrupts the operation and informs the team about the current Status (St) and next steps/objectives (O) of the operation, as well as possible Problems (P), and encourages questions of other team members (?). The StOP?-protocol draws attention to the team. Anticipating the occurrence of StOP?-protocols may support awareness of team processes and quality issues from the beginning and thus support other interventions such as the TTO; however, it also may signal an additional demand and contribute to a phenomenon akin to "checklist fatigue." We investigated if, and how, the introduction of the StOP?-protocol influenced TTO quality. Methods: This was a prospective intervention study employing a pre-post design. In the visceral surgical departments of two university hospitals and one urban hospital the quality of 356 timeouts (out of 371 included operation) was assessed by external observers before (154) and after (202) the introduction of the StOP?-briefing. Timeout quality was rated in terms of timeout completeness (number of checklist items mentioned) and timeout quality (engagement, pace, social atmosphere, noise). Results: As compared to the baseline, after the implementation of the StOP?-protocol, observed timeouts had higher completeness ratings ( Conclusion: Aspects of TTO are affected by the anticipation of StOP?-protocols. However, rather than harming the timeout goals by inducing "checklist fatigue," it increases completeness and quality of the team timeout.

Indexed as

intraoperative briefingpatient safetysurgical checklistteam interventionteamwork in medicineteamwork in surgery

Identifiers

PMID37457099
PMCPMC10338924
OpenAlexW4382722699

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.