Background: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. Methods: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.Results: 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). Conclusion: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.

No abstract

The complex reality in which the checklist needs to be implemented requires an approach that includes more than eliminating barriers and supporting facilitating factors. Implementation leaders must facilitate team learning to foster the mutual understanding of perspectives and motivations, and the realignment of routines. This paper provides a pragmatic overview of the user-related barriers and facilitators upon which theories, hypothesising potential change strategies and interactions, can be developed and tested empirically.

IntroductionThe aims of this study were to explore the incidence of in-hospital inappropriate empiric antibiotic use in patients with severe infection and to identify its relationship with patient outcomes.MethodsMedline (from 2004 to 2014) was systematically searched by using predefined inclusion criteria. Reference lists of retrieved articles were screened for additional relevant studies. The systematic review included original articles reporting a quantitative measure of the association between the use of (in)appropriate empiric antibiotics in patients with severe in-hospital infections and their outcomes. A meta-analysis, using a random-effects model, was conducted to quantify the effect on mortality by using risk ratios.ResultsIn total, 27 individual articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The percentage of inappropriate empiric antibiotic use ranged from 14.1% to 78.9% (Q1-Q3: 28.1% to 57.8%); 13 of 27 studies (48.1%) described an incidence of 50% or more. A meta-analysis for 30-day mortality and in-hospital mortality showed risk ratios of 0.71 (95% confidence interval 0.62 to 0.82) and 0.67 (95% confidence interval 0.56 to 0.80), respectively. Studies with outcome parameter 28-day and 60-day mortality reported significantly (P ≤0.02) higher mortality rates in patients receiving inappropriate antibiotics. Two studies assessed the total costs, which were significantly higher in both studies (P ≤0.01).ConclusionsThis systematic review with meta-analysis provides evidence that inappropriate use of empiric antibiotics increases 30-day and in-hospital mortality in patients with a severe infection.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-015-0795-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.