ArticleJournal of patient safety2025
Using SEIPS 101 Tools to Model Surgical Count Processes.
Article in Journal of patient safety, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Work as Imagined Versus Work as Done: A Usability Evaluation of an RFO Sponge-counting System in Real Operating Room Conditions.Journal of patient safety · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesRetained foreign objects (RFOs) are a frequent sentinel event that may cause significant harm to patients. The surgical count is the primary prevention measure for RFOs, yet there has been limited research into the system factors that interact in this process. The objective of this study is to create SEIPS 101 tools that help to better understand the contributing systems factors.
methodsTrained researchers directly observed the count process in 22 general and gynecological surgical cases and collected data including the people; tasks; tools; environmental; and organizational factors. Ad hoc in situ interviews were conducted as the tools were being iteratively constructed during observations.
resultsThe journey map found 6 different phases of the counting process, conducted in 4 different environments, consisting of multiple tasks performed by 3 OR team members. The people map identified 8 people influencing the counting process, many requiring bidirectional communication. The tasks and tools matrix found 4 high-frequency use tools across key tasks, with medium to low ease of access and/or usability. The PETT scan revealed 56 individual barriers and 31 individual facilitators.
conclusionsOur results reveal the variety of systems factors and their complex interactions during the count process, challenge current thinking in RFO avoidance, and reveal new ways to intervene. They demonstrate the hidden contribution that resilience plays in prevention and how not only adhering to count policies and best practice guidelines can prevent RFOs, which by necessity challenges the value of deviations, adaptations, and descriptions of error as a reasonable explanation to why RFOs occur.
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.