Development and validation of the SURgical PAtient Safety System (SURPASS) checklist

Vries, Eefje N. de; Hollmann, Markus W.; Smorenburg, Susanne M.; Gouma, Dirk J.; Boermeester, Marja A.

doi:10.1136/qshc.2008.027524

Cited by 186 publications

(172 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

163

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the future it is plausible that checklists that span the entire patient pathway will evolve further. 18 A better understanding of the relationship between checklists, and of the domains within a single checklist, will not only facilitate use on a day-to-day basis in perioperative care but also guide further checklist development and well-designed integration into care processes. o Major+ surgery, covering such procedures as aortic reconstruction, total cystectomy or radical prostatectomy, pancreatic resection, biliary reconstruction, liver resection, oesophagectomy, total gastrectomy, abdominoperineal resection of rectum and major head and neck surgery.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Surgical Checklist Implementation Project

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mini-AbstractThe WHO checklist was associated with reduced case-mix adjusted complications following surgery that was most significant when all three components of the checklist were completed.Full, as opposed to partial, checklist completion provides a health policy opportunity to improve checklist impact on surgical safety and quality of care. 3 Structured Abstract ObjectiveTo evaluate impact of WHO checklist compliance on risk-adjusted clinical outcomes, including the influence of checklist components (Sign-in, Time-out, Sign-out) on outcomes. Summary Background DataThere remain unanswered questions surrounding surgical checklists as a quality and safety tool, such as the impact in cases of differing complexity and the extent of checklist implementation. MethodsData were collected from surgical admissions (6,714 patients) March 2010-June 2011 at five academic and community hospitals. The primary endpoint was any complication, including mortality, occurring prior to hospital discharge. Checklist usage was recorded as checklist completed in full/partly. Multilevel modeling was performed to investigate the association between complications/mortality and checklist completion. ResultsSignificant variability in checklist usage was found: while at least one of the three components was completed in 96.7% of cases the entire checklist was only completed in 62.1% of cases. Checklist completion did not affect mortality reduction, but significantly lowered risk of post-operative complication (16.9% vs. 11.2%) and was largely noticed when all three components of the checklist had been completed (OR 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.37-0.87,p<0.01). Calculated population attributable fractions (PAF) showed that 14% (95% 4 confidence interval 7%-21%) of the complications could be prevented if full completion of the checklist was implemented. ConclusionsChecklist implementation was associated with reduced case-mix adjusted complications following surgery and was most significant when all three components of the checklist were completed. Full, as opposed to partial, checklist completion provides a health policy opportunity to improve checklist impact on surgical safety and quality of care.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Surgical Checklist Implementation Project

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In fact filling out the checklist was the duty of anesthesia technicians and other personnel would not crosscheck this. We recommend Surgical Patient Safety System (SUR-PASS) checklist, a patient-center multidisciplinary list that covers the entire surgical patient pathway [27]. As most of the incidents would occur in the period before a surgical procedure and following a surgical procedure, intercepting incidents by only using a single checklist in the OR is under question [28].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research Paper: Risk Assessment of Surgical Procedures in a Referral Hospital

Rezaei

Yarmohammadian

Taleghani

et al. 2017

hdq

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Adverse Events (AEs) due to failure in healthcare procedures are common. These procedures are often evaluated independently. The objectives of this study are to investigate the nature of the failures in healthcare procedures of the surgical patients, assessing the frequency of these failures and preventability, and exploring their consequences, underlying causes, and prevention strategies in a referral hospital in the center of Iran. Materials and Methods:This study is a prospective quantitative and qualitative research. Focus Group Discussion (FGD) meetings have been conducted to understand potential failures, their consequences, causes, and prevention strategies. Afterwards, the frequencies of these concepts have been determined separately in predefined subcategories in each step of the process. Results:The first phase of the patient care process was the most risk-prone phase. Temporary or permanent disability at the time of discharge (final impacts), inflammation/infection (injuries), the rule-based behavior associated with coordination (causes), information and communication, preventability more than 50 were the most frequent failures and had achieved the highest score. Conclusion:Failures of healthcare processes are preventable to a high degree, although patients injure frequently. Interventions to mitigate these failures will enhance the reliability of surgical procedures.

show abstract

“…By contrast, our analysis of the issues in Table 2 suggests, that several design properties of checklists appear to be recurring issues, in particular those in relation to Representation, Prescriptiveness, and Abstraction.  As to the problems in the 'Operational Use' category, many of the pertinent issues do receive attention -in particular the issues of "checklist fatigue" and non-compliance -yet three notable problems lack any substantial reflection on to how they are to be overcome: o checklists are not sensitive to context or case [31]; o checklists have no predictive/ prescriptive power [48]; and o checklists have difficulties in dealing with exceptions [35]. Notably, these three problems all relate to properties of the checklist of an artifact, in terms of its representational, prescriptive and abstraction aspect.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%