ArticlePloS one2024
Surgical safety checklist compliance process as a moral hazard: An institutional ethnography.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCharting is an essential component of professional nursing practice and is arguably a key element of patient safety in surgery: without proper, objective, and timely documentation, both benign and tragical errors can occur. From surgery on wrong patients to wrong limbs, to the omission of antibiotics administration, many harms can happen in the operating room. Documentation has thus served as a safeguard for patient safety, professional responsibility, and professional accountability. In this context, we were puzzled by the practices we observed with respect to charting compliance with the surgical safety checklist (SSC) during a study of surgical teams in a large, urban teaching hospital in Canada (pseudonym 'C&C').
methodsThis article leverages institutional ethnography and a subset of data from a larger study to describe and explain the social organisation of the system that monitored surgical safety compliance at C&C from the standpoint of operating room nurses. This data included fieldnotes from observations of 51 surgical cases, on-the-spot interviews with nurses, formal interviews with individuals who were involved in the design and implementation of the SSC, and open-ended questions from two rounds of survey of OR teams.
findingsWe found that the compliance form and not the SSC itself formed the basis for reporting. To meet hospital accuracy in charting goals and legislated compliance documentation reporting requirements nurses 'pre-charted' compliance with the surgical checklist. The adoption of this workaround technically violated nursing charting principles and put them in ethically untenable positions.
conclusionsDocumenting compliance of the SSC constituted a moral hazard, constrained nurses' autonomy and moral agency, and obscured poor checklist adherence. The findings highlight how local and extra local texts, technologies and relations create ethical issues, raise questions about the effectiveness of resulting data for decision-making and contribute to ongoing conversations about nursing workarounds.
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.