Current practice on preoperative correct site surgical marking.
Frimley Park Hospital, Camberley, GU16 7UJ.Journal of perioperative practice 06/2010; 20(6):210-4.
Performing surgery at an incorrect site has devastating outcomes. The National Patient Safety agency and Royal College of Surgeons England have provided recommendations to promote correct site surgery with emphasis on surgical markings. There is little published data on surgical site marking practices amongst surgeons. A prospective audit on surgical site marking was performed on 500 surgical procedures: 204 inguinal hernias, 35 umbilical hernias, 48 varicose veins, 40 toenail removals, 123 excisions of skin lesions, 10 femoral artery procedures and 40 breast procedures. The results showed that 59% of markings were visible in theatre post sterile draping, 40.4% markings were not visible, and 0.6% (3/500) were not marked. Recommendations suggest the use of an arrow with an indelible marker pen. Our results show the use of an arrow in 64% of patients and this was the most common form of mark used. An appropriate marker pen was used on 88% of patients. There is no evident published data to compare our practice to that of other surgical units, however, to improve correct site surgery markings should be visible, recognisable and understood by all specialties and grades. A universal marking system to improve correct site surgery may be beneficial.
Article: Duplication of Surgical Site Marking[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Wrong-site surgery is a devastating complication, and its avoidance requires uncompromising vigilance. The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations has labeled wrong-site surgery as a sentinel event and requires marking the surgical site before initiating an operation. We present a case involving the duplication of a preprocedure mark. A complete review of the patient's medical record averted disaster, but the case emphasizes the need for constant attentiveness by all members of the procedural team.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.