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:BackgroundPoor uptake and understanding of critical perioperative information represent a major safety risk for surgical patients. Implementing a patient-driven surgical safety checklist might enhance the way critical information is given and increase patient involvement in their own safety throughout the surgical pathway. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a Surgical Patient Safety Checklist (PASC) for use by surgical patients.MethodThis was a prospective study, involving patient representatives, multidisciplinary healthcare professionals and elective surgical patients to develop and validate PASC using consensus-building techniques in two Norwegian hospitals. A set of items intended for PASC were rated by patients and then submitted to Content Validation Index (CVI) analyses. Items of low CVI went through a Healthcare Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (HFMEA) Hazard Scoring process, as well as a consensus process before they were either kept or discarded. Reliability of patients' PASC ratings was assessed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient analysis. Lastly, the face validity of PASC was investigated through focus group interviews with postoperative patients.ResultsInitial development of PASC resulted in a checklist consisting of two parts, one before (32 items) and one after surgery (26 items). After achieving consensus on the PASC content, 215 surgical patients from six surgical wards rated the items for the CVI analysis on a 1-4 scale and mostly agreed on the content. Five items were removed from the checklist, and six items were redesigned to improve PASCs' user-friendliness. The total Scale-level index/Average (S-CVI/Ave) before revision was 0.83 and 0.86 for pre- and post-operative PASC items, respectively. Following revision, these increased to 0.86 and 0.93, respectively. The PASC items reliability score was 0.97 (95% confidence interval 0.96 to 0.98). The qualitative assessment identified that patients who used PASC felt more in control of their situation; this was achieved when PASC was given to them at what they felt was the right time and healthcare professionals took part in its usage.ConclusionMultidisciplinary perioperative care staff and surgical patients agreed upon PASC content, the checklist ratings were reliable, and qualitative assessment suggested good face validity. PASC appears to be a usable and valid checklist for elective surgical patients across specialties.

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 WHO Surgical Safety Checklist reduces morbidity and mortality after surgery, but uptake remains challenging. In particular, low-income countries have been found to have lower rates of checklist use compared with high-income countries. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of educational workshops on Surgical Safety Checklist use implemented as part of a quality improvement initiative in five hospitals in Ethiopia that had variable experience with the Surgical Safety Checklist.MethodsFrom April 2019 to September 2020, each hospital implemented a 6-month surgical quality improvement programme, which included a Surgical Safety Checklist workshop. Statistical process control methodology was used to understand the variation in Surgical Safety Checklist compliance before and after workshops and a time-series analysis was performed using population-averaged generalized estimating equation Poisson regression. Checklist compliance was defined as correctly completing a sign in, timeout, and sign out. Incidence rate ratios of correct checklist use pre- and post-intervention were calculated and the change in mean weekly compliance was predicted.ResultsChecklist compliance data were obtained from 2767 operations (1940 (70 per cent) pre-intervention and 827 (30 per cent) post-intervention). Mean weekly checklist compliance improved from 27.3 to 41.2 per cent (mean difference 13.9 per cent, P = 0.001; incidence rate ratio 1.51, P = 0.001). Hospitals with higher checklist compliance at baseline had the greatest overall improvements in compliance, more than 50 per cent over pre-intervention, while low-performing hospitals showed no improvement.ConclusionSurgical Safety Checklist workshops improved checklist compliance in hospitals with some experience with its use. Workshops had little effect in hospitals unfamiliar with the Surgical Safety Checklist, emphasizing the importance of multifactorial interventions and culture-change approaches. In receptive facilities, short workshops can accelerate behaviour change.

Project description:ImportanceModification of the World Health Organization's Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) is a critical component of its implementation. To facilitate the SSC's use, it is important to know how surgical teams modify their SSCs, their reasons for making modifications, and the opportunities and challenges teams face in SSC tailoring.ObjectiveTo study SSC modifications in high-income hospital settings in 5 countries: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United States, and the United Kingdom.Design, setting, and participantsThis qualitative study used semistructured interviews based on the survey used in the quantitative study. Each interviewee was asked a core set of questions and various follow-up questions based on their survey responses. Interviews were conducted from July 2019 to February 2020 in person and online using teleconferencing software. Surgeons, anesthesiologists, nurses, and hospital administrators from the 5 countries were recruited through a survey and snowball sampling.Main outcomes and measuresInterviewees' attitudes and perceptions on SSC modifications and their perceived impact on operating rooms.ResultsA total of 51 surgical team members and hospital administrators from the 5 countries were interviewed (37 [75%] with >10 years of service; 28 [55%] women). There were 15 (29%) surgeons, 13 (26%) nurses, 15 (29%) anesthesiologists, and 8 (16%) health administrators. Five themes emerged concerning the awareness and involvement in SSC modifications; reasons for modifications; types of modifications; the outcomes of modifications; and perceived barriers to SSC modifications. Based on the interviews, some SSCs may go many years without being revisited or modified. SSCs are modified to ensure they address local issues and standards of practice and that they are fit for purpose. Modifications are also made following adverse events to reduce the risk of reoccurrence. Interviewees described adding, moving, and removing elements from their SSCs, which increased their sense of ownership in their SSC and participation in its performance. Some barriers to modification included leadership and the SSC's inclusion in hospitals' electronic medical record.Conclusions and relevanceIn this qualitative study of surgical team members and administrators, interviewees described addressing contemporary surgical issues through various SSC modifications. The process of SSC modification may improve team cohesion and buy-in in addition to providing opportunities for teams to improve patient safety.

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.

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