Outcomes of Postprocedural Closeout Checklist Implementation to Prevent Adverse Events during Interventional Radiology Procedures: An Initiative to Improve Outcomes

Siewert, Bettina; Brook, Olga R.; Swedeen, Suzanne; Ahmed, Muneeb; Kruskal, Jonathan B.

doi:10.1016/j.jvir.2022.06.023

Cited by 1 publication

(5 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The most exclusions were conference abstracts ( n = 11). Nine studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review [ 19 – 27 ]. Study characteristics are given in Table 2 , with 8/9 being monocenter studies and only four studies in a clinical setting.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For IR, there is only a small body of evidence that checklists reduce AEs [ 25 – 27 ]. One study used an interventional study design [ 25 ], one was prospective [ 26 ], and another one was retrospective [ 27 ]. Two studies investigated the effect of pre-procedural checklists [ 25 , 26 ], and one study focused on a post-procedural checklist [ 27 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In one retrospective study about the effect of a post-procedural checklist, the authors showed a significant reduction of AEs and found a decrease in repeat procedures after implementing the post-procedural checklist [ 27 ]. This recent study, comprising a large number of procedures, was based on a self-reporting system for AEs [ 27 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…None of the studies published the checklist compliance bearing an unfavourable bias for checklists. One study was based on a self-reporting system for AEs, which might lead to an underestimation of errors [ 27 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Avoiding adverse events in interventional radiology – a systematic review on the instruments

Blum,

Hoffmann

2024

CVIR Endovasc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Avoiding AEs is a pivotal fundament for high patient safety in an efficient interventional radiology (IR) department. Although IR procedures are considered to have a lower risk than their surgical alternatives, they account for one third of all radiological adverse events (AEs) and in general, the number of AEs is increasing. Thus, measures to prevent AEs in IR are of interest. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted via handsearch and Ovid. A structured data extraction was performed with all included studies and their quality of evidence was evaluated. Finally, data were aggregated for further statistical analysis. Results After screening 1,899 records, 25 full-text publications were screened for eligibility. Nine studies were included in the review. Of those, four studies investigated in simulator training, one in team training, three in checklists, and one in team time-out. Eight were monocenter studies, and five were conducted in a non-clinical context. Study quality was low. Aggregation and analysis of data was only possible for the studies about checklists with an overall reduction of the median error per procedure from 0.35 to 0.06, observed in a total of 20,399 and 58,963 procedures, respectively. Conclusion The evidence on the instruments to avoid AEs in IR is low. Further research should be conducted to elaborate the most powerful safety tools to improve patient outcomes in IR by avoiding AEs.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%