Project description:BackgroundSurgical safety has advanced rapidly with evidence of improved patient outcomes through structural and process interventions. However, knowledge of how to apply these interventions successfully and sustainably at scale is often lacking. The 2019 Global Ministerial Patient Safety Summit called for a focus on implementation strategies to maintain momentum in patient safety improvements, especially in low- and middle-income settings. This study uses an implementation framework, knowledge to action, to examine a model of nationwide World Health Organization (WHO) Surgical Safety Checklist implementation in Cameroon. Cameroon is a lower-middle-income country, and based on data from high- and low-income countries, we hypothesized that more than 50% of participants would be using the checklist (penetration) in the correct manner (fidelity) 4 months postintervention.MethodsA collaboration of 3 stakeholders (Ministry of Health, academic institution, and nongovernmental organization) used a prospective observational design. Based on knowledge to action, there were 3 phases to the study implementation: problem identification (lack of routine checklist use in Cameroonian hospitals), multifaceted implementation strategy (3-day multidisciplinary training course, coaching, facilitated leadership engagement, and support networks), and outcome evaluation 4 months postintervention. Validated implementation outcomes were assessed. Primary outcomes were checklist use (penetration) and fidelity; secondary outcomes were perioperative teams' reactions, learning and behavior change; and tertiary outcomes were perioperative teams' acceptability of the checklist.ResultsThree hundred and fifty-one operating room staff members from 25 hospitals received training. Median time to evaluation was 4.5 months (interquartile range [IQR]: 4.5-5.5, range 3-7); checklist use (penetration) increased from 20% (95% confidence interval [CI], 16-25) to 56% (95% CI, 49-63); fidelity for adherence to 6 basic safety processes was high: verification of patient identification was 91% (95% CI, 87-95); risk assessment for difficult intubation was 79% (95% CI, 73-85): risk assessment for blood loss was 88% (95% CI, 83-93) use of pulse oximetry was 93% (95% CI, 90-97); antibiotic administration was 95% (95% CI, 91-98); surgical counting was 89% (95% CI, 84-93); and fidelity for nontechnical skills measured by the WHO Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale was 4.5 of 7 (95% CI, 3.5-5.4). Median scores for all secondary outcomes were 10/10, and 7 acceptability measures were consistently more than 70%.ConclusionsThis study shows that a multifaceted implementation strategy is associated with successful checklist implementation in a lower-middle-income country such as Cameroon, and suggests that a theoretical framework can be used to practically drive nationwide scale-up of checklist use.

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: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:To address the need for a pediatric surgical checklist for adult providers. Pediatric surgery is unique due to the specific needs and many tasks that are employed in the care of adults require accommodations for children. There are some resources for adult surgeons to perform safe pediatric surgery and to assist such surgeons in pediatric emergencies, we created a straightforward checklist based on current literature. We propose a surgical checklist as the value of surgical checklists has been validated through research in a variety of applications. Literature review on PubMed to gather information on current resources for pediatric surgery, all papers on surgical checklists describing their outcomes as of October 2023 were included to prevent a biased overview of the existing literature. Interviews with multiple pediatric surgeons were conducted for the creation of a checklist that is relevant to the field and has limited bias. Forty-two papers with 8,529,061 total participants were included. The positive impact of checklists was highlighted throughout the literature in terms of outcomes, financial cost and team relationship. Certain care checkpoints emerged as vital checklist items: antibiotic administration, anesthetic considerations, intraoperative hemodynamics and postoperative resuscitation. The result was the creation of a checklist that is not substitutive for existing WHO surgery checklists but additive for adult surgeons who must operate on children in emergencies. The outcomes measured throughout the literature are varied and thus provide both a nuanced view of a variety of factors that must be taken into account and are limited in the amount of evidence for each outcome. We hope to implement the checklist developed to create a standard of care for pediatric surgery performed in low resource settings by adult surgeons and further evaluate its impact on emergency pediatric surgery outcomes. Fulbright Fogarty Fellowship, GHES NIH FIC D43 TW010540.

Project description:BackgroundSurgical checklists are increasingly used to improve compliance with evidence-based processes in the perioperative period. Although enthusiasm exists for using checklists to improve outcomes, recent studies have questioned their effectiveness in large populations.ObjectiveWe sought to examine the association of Keystone Surgery, a statewide implementation of an evidence-based checklist and Comprehensive Unit-based Safety Program, on surgical outcomes and health care costs.MethodsWe performed a study using national Medicare claims data for patients undergoing general and vascular surgery (n=1,002,241) from 2006 to 2011. A difference-in-differences approach was used to evaluate whether implementation was associated with improved surgical outcomes and decreased costs when compared with a national cohort of nonparticipating hospitals. Propensity score matching was used to select 10 control hospitals for each participating hospital. Costs were assessed using price-standardized 30-day Medicare payments for acute hospitalizations, readmissions, and high-cost outliers.ResultsKeystone Surgery implementation in participating centers (N=95 hospitals) was not associated with improved outcomes. Difference-in-differences analysis accounting for trends in nonparticipating hospitals (N=950 hospitals) revealed no differences in adjusted rates of 30-day mortality [relative risk (RR)=1.03; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 0.97-1.10], any complication (RR=1.03; 95% CI, 0.99-1.07), reoperations (RR=0.89; 95% CI, 0.56-1.22), or readmissions (RR=1.01; 95% CI, 0.97-1.05). Medicare payments for the index admission increased following implementation ($516 average increase in payments; 95% CI, $210-$823 increase), as did readmission payments ($564 increase; 95% CI, $89-$1040 increase). High-outlier payments ($965 increase; 95% CI, $974decrease to $2904 increase) did not change.ConclusionsImplementation of Keystone Surgery in Michigan was not associated with improved outcomes or decreased costs in Medicare patients.

Project description:ImportanceDespite widespread recognition and known harms, serious surgical errors, known as surgical never events, endure. The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) has developed an oversight system to capture never events and a platform for process improvement that has not yet been critically appraised.ObjectivesTo examine surgical never events occurring in hospitals in California and summarize recommendations to prevent future events.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study identified 386 CDPH hospital administrative penalty reports, of which 142 were ascribable to never events occurring during surgery. These never events were identified and summarized from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2017. A directed qualitative approach was used to analyze CDPH-mandated corrective steps to reduce future errors in this multicenter study of all accredited hospitals in California. Inclusion of surgical never event records was based on definitions established by the US Department of Health and Human Services National Quality Forum. Data analysis was performed from January 1, 2019, to November 30, 2020.ExposuresNever events include death or disability of an American Society of Anesthesiologists class I patient, wrong site or wrong surgery, retained foreign objects, burns, equipment failure leading to intraoperative injury, nonapproved experimental procedures, insufficient surgeon presence or privileges, or fall from the operating room table.Main outcomes and measuresIncident rates, consequences, and improvement plans to prevent additional never events were outcomes of interest.ResultsA total of 142 never events were reported to the CDPH (1 per 200 000 operations). Annual surgical volume for hospitals with events was 9203 vs 3251 cases for hospitals without events (P < .001). A total of 94 of 142 events (66.2%) were retained foreign objects ranging from Kocher clamps to drain sponges. Wrong site or patient surgery accounted for 22 events (15.5%), surgical burns for 11 (7.7%), and other for 15 (10.6%). Other included insufficient surgeon presence, equipment failure, or falls in the operating room. Improvement plans included 18 unique categories of recommendations from regulators, many focusing on proper use of checklists. Regulators mandated a mean (SD) of 13 (7) corrective actions in the improvement plans. Policy adherence monitoring (119 [90.2%]), revision of existing policy (84 [63.6%]), and education regarding policy (83 [62.9%]) were common action items, whereas disciplinary action toward staff was rare (11 [8.3%]).Conclusions and relevanceSurgical never events are a rare issue in California. Numerous strategies have evolved to reduce errors, many involving the thorough and proper use of intraoperative checklists.

Dataset Information

Checklist Framework for Surgical Education Disaster Plans.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets