BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Major adverse events (AEs) related to pediatric deep sedation occur at a low frequency but can be of high acuity. The high volume of deep sedations performed by 3 departments at our institution provided an opportunity to reduce variability and increase safety through implementation of a procedural sedation safety checklist. We hypothesized that implementation of a checklist would improve compliance of critical safety elements (CSEs) (primary outcome variable) and reduce the sedation-related AE rate (secondary outcome variable). METHODS: This process improvement project was divided into 5 phases: a retrospective analysis to assess variability in capture of CSE within 3 departments that perform deep sedation and the association between noncapture of CSE and AE occurrence (phase 1), design of the checklist and trial in simulation (phase 2), provider education (phase 3), implementation and interim analysis of checklist completion (phase 4), and final analysis of completion and impact on outcome (phase 5). RESULTS: We demonstrated interdepartmental variability in compliance with CSE completion prechecklist implementation, and we identified elements associated with AEs. Completion of provider education was 100% in all 3 departments. Final analysis showed a checklist completion rate of 75%, and its use significantly improved capture of several critical safety elements. Its use did not significantly reduce AEs (P = .105). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the implementation of a sedation checklist improved process adherence and capture of critical safety elements; however, it failed to show a significant reduction in sedation-related AEs.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Major adverse events (AEs) related to pediatric deep sedation occur at a low frequency but can be of high acuity. The high volume of deep sedations performed by 3 departments at our institution provided an opportunity to reduce variability and increase safety through implementation of a procedural sedation safety checklist. We hypothesized that implementation of a checklist would improve compliance of critical safety elements (CSEs) (primary outcome variable) and reduce the sedation-related AE rate (secondary outcome variable). METHODS: This process improvement project was divided into 5 phases: a retrospective analysis to assess variability in capture of CSE within 3 departments that perform deep sedation and the association between noncapture of CSE and AE occurrence (phase 1), design of the checklist and trial in simulation (phase 2), provider education (phase 3), implementation and interim analysis of checklist completion (phase 4), and final analysis of completion and impact on outcome (phase 5). RESULTS: We demonstrated interdepartmental variability in compliance with CSE completion prechecklist implementation, and we identified elements associated with AEs. Completion of provider education was 100% in all 3 departments. Final analysis showed a checklist completion rate of 75%, and its use significantly improved capture of several critical safety elements. Its use did not significantly reduce AEs (P = .105). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the implementation of a sedation checklist improved process adherence and capture of critical safety elements; however, it failed to show a significant reduction in sedation-related AEs.