Quality of Care Service, University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
BMJ Qual Saf. 2013 Aug;22(8):639-46. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001634. Epub 2013 Mar 8.
To determine whether the items on the Time Out and the Sign Out of the Surgical Safety Checklist are properly checked by operating room (OR) staff and to explore whether the number of checked items is influenced by the severity of the intervention and the use of the checklist as a memory tool during the Time Out and the Sign Out periods.
From March to July 2010, data were collected during elective surgery at the Geneva University Hospitals, Switzerland. The main outcome was to assess whether each item of the Time Out and the Sign Out checklists have been checked, that is, 'confirmed' by at least one member of the team and 'validated' by at least one other member of the team. The secondary outcome was the number of validated items during the Time Out and the Sign Out.
Time Outs (N=80) and Sign Outs (N=81) were conducted quasi systematically (99%). Items were mostly confirmed during the Time Out (range 100-72%) but less often during the Sign Out (range 86-19%). Validation of the items was far from optimal: only 13% of Time Outs and 3% of Sign Outs were properly checked (all items validated). During the Time Out, the validation process was significantly improved among the highest risk interventions (29% validation vs 15% among interventions at lower risk). During the Sign Out, a similar effect was observed (19% and 8%, respectively). A small but significant benefit was observed when using a printed checklist as a memory tool during the Sign Out, the proportion of interventions with almost all validated items being higher compared with those without the memory tool (20% and 0%, respectively).
Training on the proper completion of the checklist must be provided to OR teams. The severity of the interventions influenced the number of items properly checked.
确定手术室(OR)工作人员是否正确检查手术安全检查表中的超时和签出项目,并探讨在超时和签出期间检查表作为记忆工具的使用是否会影响检查项目的数量。
2010 年 3 月至 7 月,在瑞士日内瓦大学医院进行了择期手术的数据收集。主要结果是评估手术安全检查表中的超时和签出检查表的每个项目是否已被团队中的至少一名成员“确认”,并被团队中的至少另一名成员“验证”。次要结果是超时和签出期间验证的项目数量。
几乎系统地进行了超时(N=80)和签出(N=81)(99%)。项目在超时期间大多被确认(范围为 100%-72%),但在签出期间较少(范围为 86%-19%)。验证项目的效果远非理想:只有 13%的超时和 3%的签出被正确检查(所有项目均已验证)。在超时期间,高风险干预措施的验证过程显著改善(29%的验证率与低风险干预措施的 15%相比)。在签出期间,也观察到类似的效果(分别为 19%和 8%)。在签出期间使用打印检查表作为记忆工具时,观察到一个较小但有意义的益处,几乎所有验证项目的干预措施比例较高,而没有记忆工具的干预措施比例较低(分别为 20%和 0%)。
必须为 OR 团队提供有关正确完成检查表的培训。干预措施的严重程度影响了正确检查的项目数量。