0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Creating a high‐performance surgical safety checklist: A multimodal evaluation plan to reinvigorate the checklist

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Rationale, Aims, and Objectives

          The WHO Surgical Safety Checklist is a communication tool designed to improve surgical safety processes and enhance teamwork. It has been widely adopted since its introduction over ten years ago. As surgical safety needs evolve, organizations should periodically review and update their checklists. A holistic evaluation of the checklist in the context of an organization is the first step to making informed updates. In this article, we describe a comprehensive but feasible strategy for checklist evaluation which we developed and implemented as part of a surgical safety initiative in a high‐performing center.

          Methods

          A three‐part evaluation plan was developed and carried out by a multidisciplinary team. The evaluation included assessment of 1. Quality of care through a review of surgical safety events; 2. Safety culture through a validated survey and informal feedback; and 3. Checklist performance through direct observations and a staff survey. To prepare for re‐implementation the current institutional checklist was critically evaluated and a context assessment survey was administered to surgical staff.

          Results

          The evaluation revealed challenges in communication and teamwork, with surgical staff often perceived to be working in silos. The quality of care assessment indicated room for improvement in safety processes. Deficiencies in the safety culture measures of communication and feedback shed light on an overall lack of engagement with the checklist. Checklist performance demonstrated good adherence to the items on the checklist but limited engagement by the surgical team and minimal communication between subteams. These findings informed our revisions to the checklist and its implementation processes.

          Conclusions

          We developed and implemented a comprehensive, scalable approach to checklist evaluation which directly informed improvements to the checklist that were tailored to the organization's current context. Organizations can apply this framework to breathe new life into their checklist and transform their safety culture.

          Related collections

          Most cited references10

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence): revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process

          Since the publication of Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 1.0) guidelines in 2008, the science of the field has advanced considerably. In this manuscript, we describe the development of SQUIRE 2.0 and its key components. We undertook the revision between 2012 and 2015 using (1) semistructured interviews and focus groups to evaluate SQUIRE 1.0 plus feedback from an international steering group, (2) two face-to-face consensus meetings to develop interim drafts and (3) pilot testing with authors and a public comment period. SQUIRE 2.0 emphasises the reporting of three key components of systematic efforts to improve the quality, value and safety of healthcare: the use of formal and informal theory in planning, implementing and evaluating improvement work; the context in which the work is done and the study of the intervention(s). SQUIRE 2.0 is intended for reporting the range of methods used to improve healthcare, recognising that they can be complex and multidimensional. It provides common ground to share these discoveries in the scholarly literature (http://www.squire-statement.org).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Systematic review of the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework

            Background Effective implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) remains a significant challenge. Numerous existing models and frameworks identify key factors and processes to facilitate implementation. However, there is a need to better understand how individual models and frameworks are applied in research projects, how they can support the implementation process, and how they might advance implementation science. This systematic review examines and describes the research application of a widely used implementation framework, the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework. Methods A systematic literature review was performed to identify and evaluate the use of the EPIS framework in implementation efforts. Citation searches in PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO, ERIC, Web of Science, Social Sciences Index, and Google Scholar databases were undertaken. Data extraction included the objective, language, country, setting, sector, EBP, study design, methodology, level(s) of data collection, unit(s) of analysis, use of EPIS (i.e., purpose), implementation factors and processes, EPIS stages, implementation strategy, implementation outcomes, and overall depth of EPIS use (rated on a 1–5 scale). Results In total, 762 full-text articles were screened by four reviewers, resulting in inclusion of 67 articles, representing 49 unique research projects. All included projects were conducted in public sector settings. The majority of projects (73%) investigated the implementation of a specific EBP. The majority of projects (90%) examined inner context factors, 57% examined outer context factors, 37% examined innovation factors, and 31% bridging factors (i.e., factors that cross or link the outer system and inner organizational context). On average, projects measured EPIS factors across two of the EPIS phases (M = 2.02), with the most frequent phase being Implementation (73%). On average, the overall depth of EPIS inclusion was moderate (2.8 out of 5). Conclusion This systematic review enumerated multiple settings and ways the EPIS framework has been applied in implementation research projects, and summarized promising characteristics and strengths of the framework, illustrated with examples. Recommendations for future use include more precise operationalization of factors, increased depth and breadth of application, development of aligned measures, and broadening of user networks. Additional resources supporting the operationalization of EPIS are available. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0842-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of the World Health Organization surgical safety checklist on postoperative complications.

              The World Health Organization (WHO) surgical safety checklist (SSC) was introduced to improve the safety of surgical procedures. This systematic review evaluated current evidence regarding the effectiveness of this checklist in reducing postoperative complications. The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL were searched using predefined inclusion criteria. The systematic review included all original articles reporting a quantitative measure of the effect of the WHO SSC on postoperative complications. Data were extracted for postoperative complications reported in at least two studies. A meta-analysis was conducted to quantify the effect of the WHO SSC on any complication, surgical-site infection (SSI) and mortality. Yule's Q contingency coefficient was used as a measure of the association between effectiveness and adherence with the checklist. Seven of 723 studies identified met the inclusion criteria. There was marked methodological heterogeneity among studies. The impact on six clinical outcomes was reported in at least two studies. A meta-analysis was performed for three main outcomes (any complication, mortality and SSI). Risk ratios for any complication, mortality and SSI were 0·59 (95 per cent confidence interval 0·47 to 0·74), 0·77 (0·60 to 0·98) and 0·57 (0·41 to 0·79) respectively. There was a strong correlation between a significant decrease in postoperative complications and adherence to aspects of care embedded in the checklist (Q = 0·82; P = 0·042). The evidence is highly suggestive of a reduction in postoperative complications and mortality following implementation of the WHO SSC, but cannot be regarded as definitive in the absence of higher-quality studies. © 2014 BJS Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
                Evaluation Clinical Practice
                Wiley
                1356-1294
                1365-2753
                March 2023
                October 10 2022
                March 2023
                : 29
                : 2
                : 341-350
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Ariadne Labs, Brigham and Women's Hospital Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health Boston Massachusetts USA
                [2 ] Department of Surgery Brigham and Women's Hospital Boston Massachusetts USA
                [3 ] Health Services Research Unit Singapore General Hospital Singapore
                [4 ] Division of Surgery and Surgical Oncology Singapore General Hospital and National Cancer Center Singapore Singapore
                [5 ] SingHealth Duke‐NUS Global Health Institute Singapore
                [6 ] Department of Surgery, Cumming School of Medicine University of Calgary Canada
                [7 ] Department of Surgery Massachusetts General Hospital Boston Massachusetts USA
                Article
                10.1111/jep.13778
                d0d10880-52d9-4dcb-95d3-14f7ca3abab5
                © 2023

                http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article