IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0203544.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reality check of using the surgical safety checklist: A qualitative study to observe application errors during snapshot audits

Author

Listed:
  • Gerald Sendlhofer
  • David Benjamin Lumenta
  • Gudrun Pregartner
  • Karina Leitgeb
  • Peter Tiefenbacher
  • Veronika Gombotz
  • Christian Richter
  • Lars Peter Kamolz
  • Gernot Brunner

Abstract

Background: The WHO Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) was established to address important safety issues and to reduce the number of surgical deaths. So far, numerous reports have demonstrated sub-optimal implementation of the SSC in practice and limited improvements in patient outcomes. Therefore, the aim of this study was to audit the SSC-practice in a real-world setting in a university hospital setting. Methods: From 2015 to 2016, independent observers performed snapshot audits in operating theatres and shadowed the three phases of the SSC. Using a 4-point Likert-scale to rate the compliance on each audit day, we generated a report highlighting possible improvements and provided feedback to the operating team members. Results: Audits were performed on 36 operating days (2015: n = 19; 2016: n = 17), in which a total of 136 surgical interventions were observed. Overall, the percentage of “very good compliance” improved from 2015 to 2016: for the sign-in from 52.9% to 81.2% (p = 0.141), for the team-time-out from 33.3% to 58.8% (p = 0.181), and for the sign-out from 21.4% to 41.7% (p = 0.401). The qualitative review revealed inconsistencies when applying the SSC, of which the missing documentation of an actually performed item or the wrong timing for an item was most common. Conclusion: Snapshot audits revealed that SSC compliance has improved over the observed period, while its application revealed inconsistencies during the three phases of the SSC. Snapshot audits proved to be a valuable tool in the qualitative analysis of SSC compliance and gave more insight than a mere completeness check of ticks in SSC documents.

Suggested Citation

  • Gerald Sendlhofer & David Benjamin Lumenta & Gudrun Pregartner & Karina Leitgeb & Peter Tiefenbacher & Veronika Gombotz & Christian Richter & Lars Peter Kamolz & Gernot Brunner, 2018. "Reality check of using the surgical safety checklist: A qualitative study to observe application errors during snapshot audits," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-11, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0203544
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203544
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0203544
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0203544&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0203544?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0203544. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.