Literature DB >> 19476643

The WHO checklist: a global tool to prevent errors in surgery.

Sukhmeet S Panesar1, Kevin Cleary, Aziz Sheikh, Liam Donaldson.   

Abstract

In this article, we welcome the adoption of the WHO surgical checklist to prevent errors in surgical practice. We highlight the scale of the problem and discuss the adoption of this tool in the UK.

Entities:  

Year:  2009        PMID: 19476643      PMCID: PMC2693116          DOI: 10.1186/1754-9493-3-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Patient Saf Surg        ISSN: 1754-9493


Background

The increased complexity of healthcare has led to a corresponding increase in the number of medical errors. A significant proportion (up to 10%) of hospitalized patients experience a patient safety incident and nearly half of these are preventable. [1] Numerically, this translates to just under 100,000 preventable patient deaths per year. [2] Approximately 1 in 8 British individuals have a surgical procedure performed each year; [3] these typically bringing them considerable benefits, but also subjecting them to significant risk of potentially avoidable harm. Significant advances have been made internationally through the World Health Organization's World Alliance for Patient Safety and through legislation to focus increased attention on patient safety considerations. One of the areas of particularly high priority is the creation of patient safety reporting systems which aim to help identify patterns of errors and through so doing facilitate learning and the formulation of harm reduction strategies. [4] The UK has been spearheading the patient safety agenda and is a pioneer in developing the first national repository of patient safety events i.e. the Research and Learning Service (RLS) database, which is maintained by the National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA). This is now the largest database of patient safety incidents in the world. These incidents are arranged categorically. To date, the NPSA has received in excess of 3 million reports [5] of which 450,000 are surgically-related (see Figure 1).
Figure 1

Degree of harm for surgical incidents occurring in the Reporting and Learning System (RLS) at the NPSA between January 2005 and September 2008.

Degree of harm for surgical incidents occurring in the Reporting and Learning System (RLS) at the NPSA between January 2005 and September 2008. The recently launched WHO Surgical Checklist is an important development, which may help to prevent a number of these surgical errors. Encouragingly, it has now been adapted for use in England and Wales. [6] One of the key error-prone areas that the surgical checklist [7] can mitigate against is that of 'Wrong-Site Surgery.' Wrong site or wrong patient incidents are rare, but the consequences can result in considerable harm to the patient. A recent study revealed 5,940 cases of wrong-site surgery (2,217 wrong side surgical procedures and 3,723 wrong-treatment/wrong procedure errors) in 13 years. [8] Our review of the RLS database (September 2007 – August 2008) revealed 26 (3.6%) cases of wrong patient, 62 (8.5%) of wrong side block, 150 (20.7%) of wrong side marked on consent form, 78 (10.7%) of wrong side marked on patient, 353 (48.6%) of wrong side marked on theatre list, 11 (1.5%) of wrong site prosthesis and 46 (6.3%) of wrong side surgery. These results are likely to be a gross under-representation of the true number of these events as reporting to the RLS is still far from complete. [9] The important study by Haynes et al. [6] has demonstrated that use of a simple checklist can substantially and significantly reduce risk of morbidity and mortality associated with surgery, and given the importance of this finding in a field that tends to be characterised by relatively little in the way of robust evidence, we have taken the policy decision to nationally implement routine use of this approach. [10] Over the next year we expect all National Health Service trusts to have adopted this very simple and effective intervention.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

SSP contributed to conception, design, analysis, interpretation of data, and drafted the manuscript. KC, AS and LD were involved in analysis and interpretation of data and revised the manuscript critically for important intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Authors' information

SSP is a clinical advisor to the Medical Director, National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA), KC is the Medical Director, NPSA, AS is Professor of Primary Care, Research and Development, University of Edinburgh and LD is the Chief Medical Officer for England.
  5 in total

1.  Adverse events in British hospitals: preliminary retrospective record review.

Authors:  C Vincent; G Neale; M Woloshynowych
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-03-03

2.  Making patient safety the centerpiece of medical liability reform.

Authors:  Hillary Rodham Clinton; Barack Obama
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2006-05-25       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population.

Authors:  Alex B Haynes; Thomas G Weiser; William R Berry; Stuart R Lipsitz; Abdel-Hadi S Breizat; E Patchen Dellinger; Teodoro Herbosa; Sudhir Joseph; Pascience L Kibatala; Marie Carmela M Lapitan; Alan F Merry; Krishna Moorthy; Richard K Reznick; Bryce Taylor; Atul A Gawande
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2009-01-14       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Wrong-side/wrong-site, wrong-procedure, and wrong-patient adverse events: Are they preventable?

Authors:  Samuel C Seiden; Paul Barach
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2006-09

5.  Use of incident reports by physicians and nurses to document medical errors in pediatric patients.

Authors:  James A Taylor; Dena Brownstein; Dimitri A Christakis; Susan Blackburn; Thomas P Strandjord; Eileen J Klein; Jaleh Shafii
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 7.124

  5 in total
  11 in total

Review 1.  Advanced degrees in academic colorectal surgery.

Authors:  Jason F Hall
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2013-12

2.  Utilization and Completeness of Surgical Safety Checklist with Associated Factors in Surgical Units of Jimma University Medical Center, Ethiopia.

Authors:  Tadesse Girma; Lidya Gemechu Mude; Azmeraw Bekele
Journal:  Int J Gen Med       Date:  2022-10-12

3.  Suboptimal compliance with surgical safety checklists in Colorado: A prospective observational study reveals differences between surgical specialties.

Authors:  Walter L Biffl; Annalee W Gallagher; Fredric M Pieracci; Crystal Berumen
Journal:  Patient Saf Surg       Date:  2015-01-31

4.  Rate of medical errors in affiliated hospitals of mazandaran university of medical sciences.

Authors:  Benyamin Mohseni Saravi; Alireza Mardanshahi; Mansour Ranjbar; Hasan Siamian; Masoud Shayeste Azar; Zolikah Asghari; Nima Motamed
Journal:  Mater Sociomed       Date:  2015-02-21

5.  Incidence, root cause, and outcomes of unintentionally retained intraabdominal surgical sponges: a retrospective case series from two hospitals in Togo.

Authors:  Boyodi Tchangai; Mazamaesso Tchaou; Iroukora Kassegne; Kpatekana Simlawo
Journal:  Patient Saf Surg       Date:  2017-10-26

6.  WHO cares? Safety checklists in echocardiography.

Authors:  Clare Quarterman; Nick Fletcher; Vishal Sharma
Journal:  Echo Res Pract       Date:  2015-12-01

7.  'Safety by DEFAULT': introduction and impact of a paediatric ward round checklist.

Authors:  Sanjiv Sharma; Mark J Peters
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2013-10-11       Impact factor: 9.097

8.  Wrong site surgery! How can we stop it?

Authors:  Vishwanath Hanchanale; Amrith Raj Rao; H Motiwala; O M A Karim
Journal:  Urol Ann       Date:  2014-01

Review 9.  Improving quality through process change: a scoping review of process improvement tools in cancer surgery.

Authors:  Alice C Wei; David R Urbach; Katharine S Devitt; Meagan Wiebe; Oliver F Bathe; Robin S McLeod; Erin D Kennedy; Nancy N Baxter
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2014-07-19       Impact factor: 2.102

10.  Assessing clarity and erasability of commercially available pens for surgical site marking: a comparative study in human volunteers.

Authors:  F C J Sim; D Angadi; G E Jarvis; M Porteous
Journal:  Patient Saf Surg       Date:  2016-03-18
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.