Surgical Safety Checklists: an Update

Impact of post-haemorrhoidectomy pain relief checklists on pain outcomes: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Haemorrhoidectomy is associated with significant post-operative pain which is primarily managed pharmacologically. Whether a non-pharmacological adjunct such as a checklist can improve pain outcomes after an open haemorrhoidectomy has yet to be studied. The purpose of this study was to determine if a patient-completed checklist of prescribed post-haemorrhoidectomy pain medications would improve pain management after surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a dual-centre randomized controlled trial of patients undergoing a Milligan-Morgan haemorrhoidectomy for symptomatic third or fourth degree haemorrhoids. Thirty-five patients were randomized into either a control group which received post-operative pain medication plus a visual analogue scale (VAS) form, or an intervention group which received a post-operative medication checklist in addition to the items the control group received. Both groups recorded their pain levels on the VAS forms at 10.00, 14.00 and 20.00 hours each day for 14 days post-operatively.

RESULTS

Patients in the checklist group reported a significantly greater reduction in mean VAS pain score of 2.51 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34-3.68; P < 0.001) between day 1 post-op and day 14 post-op compared to 1.86 (95% CI 0.77-2.95; P = 0.001) for the control group. There was no significant difference between mean pain experienced by patients in either group over each of the 14 days individually or overall (P = 0.07).

CONCLUSION

The pain medication checklist lead to a greater reduction in pain between day 1 and 14 after an open haemorrhoidectomy compared to standard care but did not significantly reduce mean pain across any individual days or overall.

Seen through the patients' eyes: surgical safety and checklists

Objective

We sought to explore the views patients have towards surgical safety and checklists. As a secondary aim, we explored if previous experience of error or other patient characteristics influence these views.

Design

A cross-sectional survey study design was applied.

Participants

The Flemish Patients' Platform network and social media were used to recruit participants.

Main outcome measure(s)

An 11-item questionnaire was designed to assess the following constructs: perception of surgical safety, attitudes towards the WHO surgical safety checklist and attitudes regarding checklist usage.

Results

Respondents' view (N = 444) on the risk of an adverse event showed considerable variation. Respondents were positive towards the checklist, strongly agreeing that it would impact positively on their safety. However, this positive perception did not translate into an attitude where patients will actively inform themselves whether a checklist is used. The majority of respondents have no difficulty with repetitive verification of identity, procedure and location of the surgery. Respondents with a clinical background were the least anxious. Views were divided regarding hearing discussions around blood loss or airway problems.

Conclusions

Patients perceive the checklist as a reliable safety tool. They do not mind repetitive verification of identity and procedure. However, hearing staff discussing specific, explicit, risks could cause anxiousness in some patients. Building a supportive and collaborative environment is needed to involve and empower patients to contribute in the realization of a safe hospital environment.