ArticleBMJ open2025
Barriers and facilitators for implementing WHO's Surgical Safety Checklist in a publicly funded hospital: a qualitative study from a tertiary-level public hospital in Croatia.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Use of the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: A Exploratory Survey.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Interventions to Improve Compliance to Surgical Safety Checklist Use: Before-and-After Study at a Tertiary Public Hospital in Croatia.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore the barriers and facilitators to implementing the WHO's Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) at a tertiary-level hospital in Croatia, a country with a publicly funded universal healthcare system.
designFocus group-based study which used Graneheim and Lundman's qualitative content analysis approach. SETTING AND
participantsWe used purposive sampling to gather participants who were representative of the usual surgical team: nurses, residents, anaesthesiologists and surgeons. Aside from this requirement, we set no specific inclusion or exclusion criteria. We conducted 6 focus groups (2 with nurses, 2 with residents, 1 with anaesthesiologists and 1 with surgeons) with 29 participants. The nurses were all female, the residents and surgeons were all male, and anaesthesiologists were mostly male (60%). Most participants had at least a bachelor's degree (93%). The focus groups were held in person at the hospital's Department of Surgery in Croatia and were conducted in the local language, based on a predeveloped topic guide.
resultsOur analysis revealed two distinct themes that were fundamentally independent of each other. The first concerned within-team hierarchies and relationships that prevented the SSC from being used as intended, while the second was related to a diverse set of resource and logistical constraints that had existed before the implementation of the SSC.
conclusionsUnderstanding the barriers faced by healthcare providers is crucial in designing training programmes that could help integrate the SSC into routine surgical practice. Our findings highlight the importance of actively including members of the surgical team in the implementation of the SSC and implementing interventions for improving within-team communication.
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.