Effects of the introduction of the WHO "Surgical Safety Checklist" on in-hospital mortality: a cohort study.

Division of Perioperative Care and Emergency Medicine, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, NL.
Annals of surgery (Impact Factor: 7.19). 11/2011; 255(1):44-9. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31823779ae
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To evaluate the effect of implementation of the WHO's Surgical Safety Checklist on mortality and to determine to what extent the potential effect was related to checklist compliance.
Marked reductions in postoperative complications after implementation of a surgical checklist have been reported. As compliance to the checklists was reported to be incomplete, it remains unclear whether the benefits obtained were through actual completion of a checklist or from an increase in overall awareness of patient safety issues.
This retrospective cohort study included 25,513 adult patients undergoing non-day case surgery in a tertiary university hospital. Hospital administrative data and electronic patient records were used to obtain data. In-hospital mortality within 30 days after surgery was the main outcome and effect estimates were adjusted for patient characteristics, surgical specialty and comorbidity.
After checklist implementation, crude mortality decreased from 3.13% to 2.85% (P = 0.19). After adjustment for baseline differences, mortality was significantly decreased after checklist implementation (odds ratio [OR] 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73-0.98). This effect was strongly related to checklist compliance: the OR for the association between full checklist completion and outcome was 0.44 (95% CI, 0.28-0.70), compared to 1.09 (95% CI, 0.78-1.52) and 1.16 (95% CI, 0.86-1.56) for partial or noncompliance, respectively.
Implementation of the WHO Surgical Checklist reduced in-hospital 30-day mortality. Although the impact on outcome was smaller than previously reported, the effect depended crucially upon checklist compliance.

1 Bookmark
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background This study is initiated to evaluate the effects, costs, and feasibility at the hospital and patient level of an evidence-based strategy to improve the use of Dutch perioperative safety guidelines. Based on current knowledge, expert opinions and expertise of the project team, a multifaceted implementation strategy has been developed.Methods/designThis is a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial including nine representative hospitals across The Netherlands. Hospitals are stratified into three groups according to hospital type and geographical location and randomized in terms of the period for receipt of the intervention. All adult surgical patients meeting the inclusion criteria are assessed for patient outcomes. The implementation strategy includes education, audit and feedback, organizational interventions (e.g., local embedding of the guidelines), team-directed interventions (e.g., multi-professional team training), reminders, as well as patient-mediated interventions (e.g., patient safety cards). To tailor the implementation activities, we developed a questionnaire to identify barriers for effective guideline adherence, based on (a) a theoretical framework for classifying barriers and facilitators, (b) an instrument for measuring determinants of innovations, and (c) 19 semi-structured interviews with perioperative key professionals. Primary outcome is guideline adherence measured at the hospital (i.e., cluster) and patient levels by a set of perioperative Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs), which was developed parallel to the perioperative guidelines. Secondary outcomes at the patient level are in-hospital complications, postoperative wound infections and mortality, length of hospital stay, and unscheduled transfer to the intensive care unit, non-elective readmission to the hospital and unplanned reoperation, all within 30 days after the initial surgery. Also, patient safety culture and team climate will be studied as potential determinants. Finally, a process evaluation is conducted to identify the compliance with the implementation strategy, as well as an economic evaluation to assess the costs. Data sources are registered clinical data and surveys. There is no form of blinding.DiscussionThe perioperative setting is an unexplored area with respect to implementation issues. This study is expected to yield important new evidence about the effects of a multifaceted approach on guideline adherence in the perioperative care setting.Trial registrationDutch trial registry: NTR3568.
    Implementation Science 01/2015; 10(1):3. DOI:10.1186/s13012-014-0198-5 · 3.47 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Seit ungefähr 10 Jahren nehmen Aspekte des Qualitäts- und Risikomanagements fast flächendeckend Einzug in die Krankenhäuser und die Medizin allgemein, was von vielen Ärzten als Paradigmenwechsel empfunden wird. Inzwischen ist die verpflichtende Anwendung der WHO-Operationscheckliste in vielen Kliniken zur Routine geworden, mit allerdings unterschiedlicher Akzeptanz. Die aktuelle Datenlage bestätigt den positiven Effekt der Checkliste auf die Komplikationsrate und die Mortalität. Dieser Effekt ist auf eine Verbesserung der Sicherheitskultur im Operationssaal zurückzuführen. Abstract For approximately the past 10 years the aspects of quality and risk management have spread widely not only into the realm of hospitals but also into overall general medicine, which is viewed by many physicians as a paradigmatic change. The required use of the WHO operating room (OR) checklist has in the meantime become routine procedure in many hospitals but with varying degrees of acceptance. Current data reaffirm the positive effect of the checklist in lowering complication and mortality rates. This effect can be directly traced to a higher level for safety culture in the OR.
    Der Urologe 11/2012; 51(11):1541-1545. DOI:10.1007/s00120-012-3020-5 · 0.44 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BackgroundThe reduction of perioperative harm is a major priority of in-hospital health care and the reporting of incidents and their causes is an important source of information to improve perioperative patient safety. We explored the number, nature and causes of voluntarily reported perioperative incidents in order to highlight the areas where further efforts are required to improve patient safety.MethodsData from the Hospital Incident Management System (HIMS), entered in the period from July 2009 to July 2012, were analyzed in a Dutch university hospital. Employees in the perioperatve field filled out a semi-structured digital form of the reporting system. The risk classification of the reported adverse events and `near misses? was based on the estimated patient consequences and the risk of recurrence, according to national guidelines. Predefined reported incident causes were categorized as human, organizational, technical and patient related.ResultsIn total, 2,563 incidents (1,300 adverse events and 1,263 `near-miss? events) were reported during 67,360 operations. Reporters were anesthesia, operating room and recovery nurses (37%), ward nurses (31%), physicians (17%), administrative personnel (5%), others (6%) and unmentioned (3%). A total of 414 (16%) adverse events had patient consequences (which affected 0,6% of all surgery patients), estimated as catastrophic in 2, very serious in 34, serious in 105, and marginally serious in 273 cases. Shortcomings in communication was the most frequent reported type of incidents. Non-compliance with Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs: instructions, regulations, protocols and guidelines) was reported with 877 (34%) of incident reports. In total, 1,194 (27%) voluntarily reported causes were SOP-related, mainly human-based (79%) and partially organization-based (21%). SOP-related incidents were not associated with more patient consequences than other voluntarily reported incidents. Furthermore `mistake or forgotten? (15%) and `communication problems? (11%) were frequently reported causes of incidents.ConclusionsThe analysis of voluntarily reported perioperative incidents identified an association between perioperative patient safety problems and human failure, such as SOP non-compliance, mistakes, forgetting, and shortcomings in communication. The data suggest that professionals themselves indicate that SOP compliance in combination with other human failures provide room for improvement.
    Patient Safety in Surgery 12/2014; 8(46). DOI:10.1186/s13037-014-0046-1