Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38757741›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical nursing2025

Perioperative patient safety indicators-A Delphi study.

Anette Nyberg, Maria Jirwe, Ami Fagerdahl, Volker Otten, Michael Haney, Birgitta Olofsson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors.

Anette NybergDepartment of Nursing, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-2057-4410
Maria JirweDepartment of Health Sciences, Swedish Red Cross University, Huddinge, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-4570-4047
Ami FagerdahlDepartment of Clinical Research and Education, Södersjukhuset, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-9170-581X
Volker OttenDepartment of Diagnostics and Intervention, Orthopaedics, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-9966-1903
Michael HaneyDepartment of Diagnostics and Intervention, Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-4049-8910
Birgitta OlofssonDepartment of Nursing, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-3754-5026

Funding

This study was supported by grants from the Strategic Research Area Health Care Science (SFO-V) and Kempe Foundation and funding from Umeå University, all in Sweden
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo identify, define and achieve consensus on perioperative patient safety indicators within a Swedish context.

designA modified Delphi method.

methodsA purposeful sample of 22 experts, all experienced operating room nurse specialists, was recruited for this study. A questionnaire was constructed incorporating statements derived from a preceding study. The experts were asked to rate the importance of each statement concerning patient safety during the perioperative phase. The data collection occurred through an online survey platform between November 2022 and April 2023. The CREDES checklist guided the reporting of this study.

resultsThe three-round Delphi study resulted in consensus on 73 statements out of 103, encompassing 74% process indicators and 26% structure indicators. Key areas of consensus included the use of the Surgical Safety Checklist and optimizing the operating room environment.

conclusionConsensus was reached on perioperative safety indicators, underscoring the intricate challenges involved in ensuring patient safety in the operating room. It emphasizes the important integration of both structure and process indicators for comprehensive safety assessment during surgical procedures. Recognizing the difficulty in measuring factors like teamwork and communication, essential for patient safety, the study offers practical guidance. It underlines a balanced approach and specific consensus areas applicable in clinical practice to enhance perioperative patient safety. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND PATIENT CARE: This study provides concrete practice guidance and establishes a structured framework for evaluating perioperative care processes. It emphasizes the critical role of professionals having the necessary skills and being present during surgical procedures. Additionally, the study underscores the paramount importance of effective communication and teamwork within the operating room team, substantively contributing to overall patient safety enhancement. IMPACT: The study focused on addressing the challenge of ensuring patient safety in operating rooms, acknowledging the persistent complications related to surgery despite global efforts to eliminate avoidable harm in healthcare. Consensus was reached on 73 crucial indicators for perioperative patient safety, emphasizing a balanced approach integrating both process and structure indicators for a comprehensive assessment of safety during surgical procedures. The study has a broad impact on professionals and healthcare systems, providing concrete guidance for practice and offering a structured process for evaluating perioperative care. REPORTING

methodThe study is reported informed by 'Guidance on Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies (CREDES) in palliative care: Recommendations derived from a methodological systematic review'. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.

Indexed as

Patient SafetyPerioperative CareQuality Indicators, Health CareAdultChecklistConsensusDelphi TechniqueFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOperating RoomsSurveys and QuestionnairesSwedenDelphi studyoperating roompatient safetyperioperative careprocess registersafety indicators

Identifiers

PMID38757741
PMCPMC11933514

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.