OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the implementation of the checklist HAS 2010 in two Lorraine health facilities to identify objectively brakes and levers to suggest possible improvements. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive survey. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Operating rooms of the Neurosciences building Central University Hospital, Nancy, Belle-Isle Hospital participating public hospital service, Metz. Two stages: a retrospective audit allowed to objectify quantitatively the presence of CL in the patient record and monitor compliance with the instructions of filling. A survey by self-administered questionnaire to professionals to assess the use of CL. RESULTS: CL was present in 50 % and 100 % records. The filling did not comply with instructions of the HAS (occupancy, three different times, time out before incision, stop the procedure if "no") and it was hard for about 30 % of participants, some items have problems of understanding. CL has strengthened information sharing about one third of respondents, over half of them are of interest, it has already helped to prevent errors. The deployment strategy influences directly the involvement of professionals. The evaluation of the use of CL cannot be done only through an audit record; the association with a self-administered questionnaire appears to be relevant. CONCLUSION: Good adhesion to the concept, hope for better results after stock enhancement: optimize information and training of all professionals, avoid duplication with other documents. The audit record alone is not a good tool for evaluating the use of LBC, we must associate a self-administered questionnaire.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the implementation of the checklist HAS 2010 in two Lorraine health facilities to identify objectively brakes and levers to suggest possible improvements. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive survey. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Operating rooms of the Neurosciences building Central University Hospital, Nancy, Belle-Isle Hospital participating public hospital service, Metz. Two stages: a retrospective audit allowed to objectify quantitatively the presence of CL in the patient record and monitor compliance with the instructions of filling. A survey by self-administered questionnaire to professionals to assess the use of CL. RESULTS: CL was present in 50 % and 100 % records. The filling did not comply with instructions of the HAS (occupancy, three different times, time out before incision, stop the procedure if "no") and it was hard for about 30 % of participants, some items have problems of understanding. CL has strengthened information sharing about one third of respondents, over half of them are of interest, it has already helped to prevent errors. The deployment strategy influences directly the involvement of professionals. The evaluation of the use of CL cannot be done only through an audit record; the association with a self-administered questionnaire appears to be relevant. CONCLUSION: Good adhesion to the concept, hope for better results after stock enhancement: optimize information and training of all professionals, avoid duplication with other documents. The audit record alone is not a good tool for evaluating the use of LBC, we must associate a self-administered questionnaire.