Dataset Information

Improving the quality of administration of the Surgical Safety Checklist: a mixed methods study in New Zealand hospitals.

ABSTRACT: While the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist (the Checklist) can improve patient outcomes, variable administration can erode benefits. We sought to understand and improve how operating room (OR) staff use the Checklist. Our specific aims were to: determine if OR staff can discriminate between good and poor quality of Checklist administration using a validated audit tool (WHOBARS); to determine reliability and accuracy of WHOBARS self-ratings; determine the influence of demographic variables on ratings and explore OR staff attitudes to Checklist administration. DESIGN:Mixed methods study using WHOBARS ratings of surgical cases by OR staff and two independent observers, thematic analysis of staff interviews. PARTICIPANTS:OR staff in three New Zealand hospitals. OUTCOME MEASURES:Reliability of WHOBARS for self-audit; staff attitudes to Checklist administration. RESULTS:Analysis of scores (243 participants, 2 observers, 59 cases) supported tool reliability, with 87% of WHOBARS score variance attributable to differences in Checklist administration between cases. Self-ratings were significantly higher than observer ratings, with some differences between professional groups but error variance from all raters was less than 10%. Key interview themes (33 interviewees) were: Team culture and embedding the Checklist, Information transfer and obstacles, Raising concerns and 'A tick-box exercise'. Interviewees felt the Checklist could promote teamwork and a safety culture, particularly enabling speaking up. Senior staff were of key importance in setting the appropriate tone. CONCLUSIONS:The WHOBARS tool could be useful for self-audit and quality improvement as OR staff can reliably discriminate between good and poor Checklist administration. OR staff self-ratings were lenient compared with external observers suggesting the value of external audit for benchmarking. Small differences between ratings from professional groups underpin the value of including all members of the team in scoring. We identified factors explaining staff perceptions of the Checklist that should inform quality improvement interventions.

SUBMITTER: Weller JM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6303739 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Improving the quality of administration of the Surgical Safety Checklist: a mixed methods study in New Zealand hospitals.

Weller Jennifer M JM Jowsey Tanisha T Skilton Carmen C Gargiulo Derryn A DA Medvedev Oleg N ON Civil Ian I Hannam Jacqueline A JA Mitchell Simon J SJ Torrie Jane J Merry Alan F AF

BMJ open 20181216 12

While the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist (the Checklist) can improve patient outcomes, variable administration can erode benefits. We sought to understand and improve how operating room (OR) staff use the Checklist. Our specific aims were to: determine if OR staff can discriminate between good and poor quality of Checklist administration using a validated audit tool (WHOBARS); to determine reliability and accuracy of WHOBARS self-ratings; determine the influence of demographic variables on rating ...[more]

PMID: 30559155

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveBold claims have been made for the ability of the WHO surgical checklist to reduce surgical morbidity and mortality and improve patient safety regardless of the setting. Little is known about how far the challenges faced by low-income countries are the same as those in high-income countries or different. We aimed to identify and compare the influences on checklist implementation and compliance in the UK and Africa.DesignEthnographic study involving observations, interviews and collection of documents. Thematic analysis of the data.SettingOperating theatres in one African university hospital and two UK university hospitals.Participants112 h of observations were undertaken. Interviews with 39 theatre and administrative staff were conducted.ResultsMany staff saw value in the checklist in the UK and African hospitals. Some resentment was present in all settings, linked to conflicts between the philosophy behind the checklist and the realities of local cultural, social and economic contexts. Compliance-involving use, completeness and fidelity-was considerably higher, though not perfect, in the UK settings. In these hospitals, compliance was supported by established structures and systems, and was not significantly undermined by major resource constraints; the same was not true of the low-income context. Hierarchical relationships were a major barrier to implementation in all settings, but were more marked in the low-income setting. Introducing a checklist in a professional environment characterised by a lack of accountability and transparency could make the staff feel jeopardised legally, professionally, and personally, and it encouraged them to make misleading records of what had actually been done.ConclusionsSurgical checklist implementation is likely to be optimised, regardless of the setting, when used as a tool in multifaceted cultural and organisational programmes to strengthen patient safety. It cannot be assumed that the introduction of a checklist will automatically lead to improved communication and clinical processes.

Project description:BackgroundThe study of safety culture and its relationship to patient care have been challenged by variation in definition, dimensionality and methods of assessment. This systematic review aimed to map methods to assess safety culture in hospitals, analyse the prevalence of these methods in the published research literature and examine the dimensions of safety culture captured through these processes.MethodsWe included studies reporting on quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods to assess safety culture in hospitals. The review was conducted using four academic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science) with studies from January 2008 to May 2020. A formal quality appraisal was not conducted. Study purpose, type of method and safety culture dimensions were extracted from all studies, coded thematically, and summarised narratively and using descriptive statistics where appropriate.ResultsA total of 694 studies were included. A third (n=244, 35.2%) had a descriptive or exploratory purpose, 225 (32.4%) tested relationships among variables, 129 (18.6%) evaluated an intervention, while 13.8% (n=96) had a methodological focus. Most studies exclusively used surveys (n=663; 95.5%), with 88 different surveys identified. Only 31 studies (4.5%) used qualitative or mixed methods. Thematic analysis identified 11 themes related to safety culture dimensions across the methods, with 'Leadership' being the most common. Qualitative and mixed methods approaches were more likely to identify additional dimensions of safety culture not covered by the 11 themes, including improvisation and contextual pressures.DiscussionWe assessed the extent to which safety culture dimensions mapped to specific quantitative and qualitative tools and methods of assessing safety culture. No single method or tool appeared to measure all 11 themes of safety culture. Risk of publication bias was high in this review. Future attempts to assess safety culture in hospitals should consider incorporating qualitative methods into survey studies to evaluate this multi-faceted construct.

Project description:BackgroundQuality indicators are registered to monitor and improve the quality of care. However, the number and effectiveness of quality indicators is under debate, and may influence the joy in work of physicians and nurses. Empirical data on the nature and consequences of the registration burden are lacking. The aim of this study was to identify and explore healthcare professionals' perceived burden due to quality registrations in hospitals, and the effect of this burden on their joy in work.MethodsA mixed methods observational study, including participative observations, a survey and semi-structured interviews in two academic hospitals and one teaching hospital in the Netherlands. Study participants were 371 healthcare professionals from an intensive care unit (ICU), a haematology department and others involved in the care of elderly patients and patients with prostate or gastrointestinal cancer.ResultsOn average, healthcare professionals spend 52.3 minutes per working day on quality registrations. The average number of quality measures per department is 91, with 1380 underlying variables. Overall, 57% are primarily registered for accountability purposes, 19% for institutional governance and 25% for quality improvement objectives. Only 36% were perceived as useful for improving quality in everyday practice. Eight types of registration burden were identified, such as an excessive number of quality registrations, and the lack of usefulness for improving quality and inefficiencies in the registration process. The time healthcare professionals spent on quality registrations was not correlated with any measure of joy in work. Perceived unreasonable registrations were negatively associated with healthcare professionals' joy in work (intrinsic motivation and autonomy). Healthcare professionals experienced quality registrations as diverting time from patient care and from actually improving quality.ConclusionRegistering fewer quality indicators, but more of what really matters to healthcare professionals, is key to increasing the effectiveness of registrations for quality improvement and governance. Also the efficiency of quality registrations should be increased through staffing and information and communications technology solutions to reduce the registration burden experienced by nurses and physicians.

Project description:ObjectivesTo assess an intervention for surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) improvement within surgical teams focused on addressing barriers and fostering enablers and ownership of guideline compliance.DesignThe Queensland Surgical Antibiotic Prophylaxis (QSAP) study was a multicentre, mixed methods study designed to address barriers and enablers to SAP compliance and facilitate engagement in self-directed audit/feedback and assess the efficacy of the intervention in improving compliance with SAP guidelines. The implementation was assessed using a 24-month interrupted time series design coupled with a qualitative evaluation.SettingThe study was undertaken at three hospitals (one regional, two metropolitan) in Australia.ParticipantsSAP-prescribing decisions for 1757 patients undergoing general surgical procedures from three health services were included. Six bimonthly time points, pre-implementation and post implementation of the intervention, were measured. Qualitative interviews were performed with 29 clinical team members. SAP improvements varied across site and time periods.InterventionQSAP embedded ownership of quality improvement in SAP within surgical teams and used known social influences to address barriers to and enablers of optimal SAP prescribing.ResultsThe site that reported senior surgeon engagement showed steady and consistent improvement in prescribing over 24 months (prestudy and poststudy). Multiple factors, including resource issues, influenced engagement and sites/time points where these were present had no improvement in guideline compliance.ConclusionsThe barriers-enablers-ownership model shows promise in its ability to facilitate prescribing improvements and could be expanded into other areas of antimicrobial stewardship. Senior ownership was a predictor of success (or failure) of the intervention across sites and time periods. The key role of senior leaders in change leadership indicates the critical need to engage other specialties in the stewardship agenda. The influence of contextual factors in limiting engagement clearly identifies issues of resource distributions/inequalities within health systems as limiting antimicrobial optimisation potential.

Dataset Information

Improving the quality of administration of the Surgical Safety Checklist: a mixed methods study in New Zealand hospitals.

Publications

Improving the quality of administration of the Surgical Safety Checklist: a mixed methods study in New Zealand hospitals.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets