M Delisle1,2, J C Pradarelli1,3, N Panda1,4, L Koritsanszky1,5, Y Sonnay1, S Lipsitz1, R Pearse6, E M Harrison7, B Biccard8, T G Weiser5,9,7, A B Haynes1,4. 1. Safe Surgery Program, Ariadne Labs, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. 3. Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 5. Lifebox, Brooklyn, New York, USA. 6. William Harvey Research Institute, Queen Mary University of London and Barts Health NHS Trust, London. 7. Department of Clinical Surgery, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, University of Edinburgh, UK. 8. Department of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, University of Cape Town and Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa. 9. Department of Surgery, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, California, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) is a patient safety tool shown to reduce mortality and to improve teamwork and adherence with perioperative safety practices. The results of the original pilot work were published 10 years ago. This study aimed to determine the contemporary prevalence and predictors of SSC use globally. METHODS: Pooled data from the GlobalSurg and Surgical Outcomes studies were analysed to describe SSC use in 2014-2016. The primary exposure was the Human Development Index (HDI) of the reporting country, and the primary outcome was reported SSC use. A generalized estimating equation, clustering by facility, was used to determine differences in SSC use by patient, facility and national characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 85 957 patients from 1464 facilities in 94 countries were included. On average, facilities used the SSC in 75·4 per cent of operations. Compared with very high HDI, SSC use was less in low HDI countries (odds ratio (OR) 0·08, 95 per cent c.i. 0·05 to 0·12). The SSC was used less in urgent compared with elective operations in low HDI countries (OR 0·68, 0·53 to 0·86), but used equally for urgent and elective operations in very high HDI countries (OR 0·96, 0·87 to 1·06). SSC use was lower for obstetrics and gynaecology versus abdominal surgery (OR 0·91, 0·85 to 0·98) and where the common or official language was not one of the WHO official languages (OR 0·30, 0·23 to 0·39). CONCLUSION: Worldwide, SSC use is generally high, but significant variability exists. Implementation and dissemination strategies must be developed to address this variability.
BACKGROUND: The Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) is a patient safety tool shown to reduce mortality and to improve teamwork and adherence with perioperative safety practices. The results of the original pilot work were published 10 years ago. This study aimed to determine the contemporary prevalence and predictors of SSC use globally. METHODS: Pooled data from the GlobalSurg and Surgical Outcomes studies were analysed to describe SSC use in 2014-2016. The primary exposure was the Human Development Index (HDI) of the reporting country, and the primary outcome was reported SSC use. A generalized estimating equation, clustering by facility, was used to determine differences in SSC use by patient, facility and national characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 85 957 patients from 1464 facilities in 94 countries were included. On average, facilities used the SSC in 75·4 per cent of operations. Compared with very high HDI, SSC use was less in low HDI countries (odds ratio (OR) 0·08, 95 per cent c.i. 0·05 to 0·12). The SSC was used less in urgent compared with elective operations in low HDI countries (OR 0·68, 0·53 to 0·86), but used equally for urgent and elective operations in very high HDI countries (OR 0·96, 0·87 to 1·06). SSC use was lower for obstetrics and gynaecology versus abdominal surgery (OR 0·91, 0·85 to 0·98) and where the common or official language was not one of the WHO official languages (OR 0·30, 0·23 to 0·39). CONCLUSION: Worldwide, SSC use is generally high, but significant variability exists. Implementation and dissemination strategies must be developed to address this variability.
Authors: Brendan T Heiden; Emmanuel Tetteh; Keenan J Robbins; Rachel G Tabak; Ruben G Nava; Gary F Marklin; Daniel Kreisel; Bryan F Meyers; Benjamin D Kozower; Virginia R McKay; Varun Puri Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2021-09-06 Impact factor: 5.102
Authors: Ravi Oodit; Bruce M Biccard; Eugenio Panieri; Adrian O Alvarez; Marianna R S Sioson; Salome Maswime; Viju Thomas; Hyla-Louise Kluyts; Carol J Peden; Hans D de Boer; Mary Brindle; Nader K Francis; Gregg Nelson; Ulf O Gustafsson; Olle Ljungqvist Journal: World J Surg Date: 2022-05-31 Impact factor: 3.282
Authors: Annemarie Fridrich; Anita Imhof; Sven Staender; Mirko Brenni; David Schwappach Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2022-07-15 Impact factor: 2.257
Authors: James Jin; Salesi Akau Ola; Cheng-Har Yip; Peter Nthumba; Emmanuel A Ameh; Stijn de Jonge; Mira Mehes; Hon Iferemi Waiqanabete; Jaymie Henry; Andrew Hill Journal: World J Surg Date: 2021-07-03 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Nikhil Panda; Luca Koritsanszky; Megan Delisle; Theophilus T K Anyomih; Eesha V Desai; Yves Sonnay; George Molina; Katayoun Madani; Dominique Vervoort; Thomas G Weiser; Evan M Benjamin; Alex B Haynes Journal: World J Surg Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: S Ziemann; M Coburn; R Rossaint; J Van Waesberghe; H Bürkle; M Fries; M Henrich; D Henzler; T Iber; J Karst; O Kunitz; R Löb; W Meißner; P Meybohm; B Mierke; F Pabst; G Schaelte; J Schiff; M Soehle; M Winterhalter; A Kowark Journal: Anaesthesist Date: 2020-07-06 Impact factor: 1.041