Development of the Surgical Patient safety Observation Tool (SPOT)

Heideveld-Chevalking, Anita J; Calsbeek, Hiske; Emond, Y J; Damen, Johan; Meijerink, W J H J; Hofland, Jan; Wolff, André

doi:10.1002/bjs5.44

Cited by 2 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One study was excluded from further analysis because of low outcome and analysis scores ( Appendix S2 , supporting information). Thus, 20 studies showing good internal and external validity remained, and were used for in‐depth analysis.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prospective methods for identifying perioperative risk-assessment methods for patient safety over 20 years: a systematic review

Heideveld-Chevalking

Calsbeek²,

Hofland

et al. 2019

BJS Open

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Serious preventable surgical events still occur despite considerable efforts to improve patient safety. In addition to learning from retrospective analyses, prospective risk‐assessment methods may help to decrease preventable events further by targeting perioperative hazards. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the methods used to identify perioperative patient safety risks prospectively, and to describe the risk areas targeted, the quality characteristics and feasibility of methods. Methods MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane databases were searched, adhering to PRISMA guidelines. All studies describing the development and results of prospective methods to identify perioperative patient safety risks were included and assessed on methodological quality. Exclusion criteria were interventional studies, studies targeting one specific issue, studies reporting on structural factors relating to fundamental hospital items, and non‐original or case studies. Results The electronic search resulted in 16 708 publications, but only 20 were included for final analysis, describing five prospective risk‐assessment methods. Direct observation was used in most studies, often in combination. Direct (16 studies) and indirect (4 studies) observations identified (potential) adverse events (P)AEs, process flow disruptions, poor protocol compliance and poor practice performance. (Modified) Healthcare Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (HFMEA™) (5 studies) targeted potential process flow disruption failures, and direct (P)AE surveillance (3 studies) identified (P)AEs prospectively. Questionnaires (3 studies) identified poor protocol compliance, surgical flow disturbances and patients' willingness to ask questions about their care. Overall, quality characteristics and feasibility of the methods were poorly reported. Conclusion The direct (in‐person) observation appears to be the primary prospective risk‐assessment method that currently may best help to target perioperative hazards. This is a reliable method and covers a broad spectrum of perioperative risk areas.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prospective methods for identifying perioperative risk-assessment methods for patient safety over 20 years: a systematic review

Heideveld-Chevalking

Calsbeek²,

Hofland

et al. 2019

BJS Open

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Results are anonymized and then used for benchmarking between VVCZ member hospitals. SIPPS is complementary to the previously evaluated SPOT, which shows the results of observable patient safety topics. Together with protocol insight (judging clarity, currency and conformity with perioperative guidelines) and interviews with caregivers, a comprehensive perioperative audit is provided for Dutch hospitals, in a safe setting by and for professionals themselves.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The study consisted of two parts ( Fig . ): evaluating and improving the preliminary questionnaire by means of a RAND‐modified Delphi consensus procedure ; and validating SIPPS by pilot‐testing the instrument on its clinimetric characteristics in five hospitals ( Table ). The self‐assessment questionnaire is a translation of the content of the perioperative guidelines into questions answered by a preselected group of healthcare providers working in the perioperative trajectory.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…). This assessment includes the following four parts: a prospective Self‐assessment Instrument for Perioperative Patient Safety (SIPPS) by means of a questionnaire, conducted by professionals working in the perioperative trajectory; observations of perioperative practice performance in the workplace by peers, using the Surgical Patient safety Observation Tool (SPOT); assessment of locally used protocols based on (inter)national guidelines; and interviews with professionals directly involved in perioperative care.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The aim of the present multicentre pilot study was to evaluate and optimize SIPPS as one of the four iPOPS core elements for further improvement and scientific validation of the instrument. The pilot study included testing of SIPPS in five hospitals to assess the clinimetric characteristics in line with previous studies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Development and validation of a Self-assessment Instrument for Perioperative Patient Safety (SIPPS)

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPatient safety is a fundamental value of healthcare to avoid patient harm. Non‐compliance with patient safety standards may result in patient harm and is therefore a global concern. A Self‐assessment Instrument for Perioperative Patient Safety (SIPPS) monitoring and benchmarking compliance to safety standards was validated in a multicentre pilot study.MethodsA preliminary questionnaire, based on the Dutch perioperative patient safety guidelines and covering international patient safety goals, was evaluated in a first digital RAND Delphi round. The results were used to optimize the questionnaire and design the SIPPS. For measurement and benchmarking purposes, SIPPS was categorized into seven main patient safety domains concerning all care episode phases of the perioperative trajectory. After consensus was reached in a face‐to‐face Delphi round, SIPPS was pilot‐tested in five hospitals for five characteristics: measurability, applicability, improvement potential, discriminatory capacity and feasibility.ResultsThe results of the first Delphi round showed moderate feasibility for the preliminary questionnaire (81·6 per cent). The pilot test showed good measurability for SIPPS: 99·8 per cent of requested information was assessable. Some 99·9 per cent of SIPPS questions were applicable to the selected respondents. With SIPPS, room for improvement in perioperative patient safety compliance was demonstrated for all hospitals, concerning all safety domains and all care episode phases of the perioperative trajectory (compliance 76·1 per cent). SIPPS showed mixed results for discriminatory capacity. SIPPS showed good feasibility for all items (range 91·9–95·7 per cent).ConclusionA self‐assessment instrument for measuring perioperative patient safety (SIPPS) compliance meeting international standards was validated. With SIPPS, improvement areas for perioperative patient safety and best practices across hospitals could be identified.

show abstract

Development of the Surgical Patient safety Observation Tool (SPOT)

Cited by 2 publications

References 25 publications

Prospective methods for identifying perioperative risk-assessment methods for patient safety over 20 years: a systematic review

Prospective methods for identifying perioperative risk-assessment methods for patient safety over 20 years: a systematic review

Development and validation of a Self-assessment Instrument for Perioperative Patient Safety (SIPPS)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About