Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39653512›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2024

Healthcare professionals' perception of the World Health Organization Surgical Safety Checklist and psychological safety: a cross-sectional survey.

Kjestine Emilie Møller, Olivia Wisborg McLeskey, Susanne Rosthøj, Patricia Trbovich, Teodor Grantcharov, Jette Led Sorensen, Jeanett Strandbygaard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
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

7 authors.

Kjestine Emilie MøllerDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Juliane Marie Centre, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark kjestine.emilie.moeller@regionh.dk.ORCID 0000-0002-2623-7562
Olivia Wisborg McLeskeyDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Juliane Marie Centre, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Susanne RosthøjStatistics and Data Analysis, Danish Cancer Society Research Center, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Patricia TrbovichInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Teodor GrantcharovDepartment of Surgery, Clinical Excellence Research Centre, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Jette Led SorensenMary Elizabeth's Hospital and Juliane Marie Centre, Rigshospitalet for Children, Teens and Expecting Families, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jeanett StrandbygaardDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Juliane Marie Centre, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-0865-2460

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) is a cornerstone of ensuring the safety and accuracy of communication among interdisciplinary teams in the operating room. Central to the successful implementation of such a checklist is the concept of psychological safety. Despite the extensive body of research on the checklists' efficacy, the association between healthcare professionals' (HCPs) perceptions of the checklist and their level of psychological safety remains uninvestigated. This study attempts to address this gap by examining how their perceptions of the checklist intersect with their sense of psychological safety.

methodsA cross-sectional survey comprising 25 items was conducted from November 2022 to January 2023 on; Demographics (6 items), the SSC (12 items), and the Psychological Safety Scale (7 items). We invited 125 HCPs from five different professional groups in the operation ward to complete the survey.

resultsOf the 125 asked to participate, 107 responded, and 100 of whom completed the entire survey. The level of psychological safety increased by 1.25 (95 % CI 0.36 to 2.14, p=0.006) per one-point increase of the perception that colleagues listen when checklist items are being reviewed, and increased by 1.1 (95% CI 0.4 to 1.7, p=0.002) per one-point increase in the perception that the checklist enhances interdisciplinary teamwork, and increased by 0.86 (95% CI 0.15 to 1.57, p=0.02) per one-point increase in the perception that the checklist provides structure in the operating room. Conversely, the level of psychological safety decreased by 1.4 (95 % CI 0.5 to 2.3, p=0.004) per one-point increase in the perception that the checklist is time-consuming.

conclusionOur findings reveal a significant association between psychological safety levels and perceptions of the SSC. Increased psychological safety was linked to more positive views on the checklist's role in enhancing interdisciplinary teamwork, creating structure and attentiveness among colleagues. While seeing the checklist as time-consuming was associated with a lower psychological safety rating. These results suggest that psychological safety influences how individuals view and engage with patient safety measures like the checklist, highlighting the importance of fostering a supportive environment to optimise safety practice.

Indexed as

ChecklistHealth PersonnelPatient SafetyWorld Health OrganizationAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOperating RoomsPerceptionPsychological SafetySafety ManagementSurgical Procedures, OperativeChecklistsPatient safetySafety cultureSurgerySurveys

Identifiers

PMID39653512
PMCPMC11628965

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.