Incorporating patient safety into early undergraduate medical education: teaching medical students to perform surgical time outs during anatomy

Surgical safety checklists in UK veterinary practice: Current implementation and attitudes towards their use

BACKGROUND

Surgical safety checklist (SSC) use benefits veterinary patients, but endorsement and implementation are essential for these benefits to be observed.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey assessed UK veterinary professionals' attitudes towards and usage of SSCs and identified factors associated with poorer attitude or failure to use SSCs.

RESULTS

Of 513 respondents, 70% used SSCs. Of these, 87.1% used SSCs for every surgical procedure, 19.1% adapted SSCs for different procedures and 61.1% had a standard operating procedure detailing how to use SSCs. Attitudes towards SSC use were favourable, with increased positive attitude associated with employing at least one registered veterinary nurse with a post-qualifying qualification (p < 0.001), current SSC use (p < 0.001), undertaking self-directed reading (p = 0.033) or completing SSC-relevant post-qualification continuing professional development (p = 0.005). Factors associated with veterinary practices not using SSCs included Practice Standards Scheme (PSS) non-membership (odds ratio [OR] 2.0, 1.1-3.4), no RCVS hospital status (OR 1.9, 1.1-3.5) or being a mixed first-opinion veterinary practice (OR 2.4, 1.2-5.0).

LIMITATIONS

Study limitations include sampling methodology and non-validated attitudinal scale usage.

CONCLUSION

Most respondents used SSCs. Familiarity, education and the RCVS PSS were associated with improved uptake and attitudes, but mixed practice was associated with reduced usage.

Spanish Version of the Scale “Eventos Adversos Associados às Práticas de Enfermagem” (EAAPE): Validation in Nursing Students

Healthcare carried out by different health professionals, including nurses, implies the possible appearance of adverse events that affect the safety of the patient and may cause damage to the patient. In clinical practice, it is necessary to have measurement instruments that allow for the evaluation of the presence of these types of events in order to prevent them. This study aims to validate the “Eventos adversos associados às práticas de enfermagem” (EAAPE) scale in Spanish and evaluate its reliability. The validation was carried out through a cross-sectional study with a sample of 337 nursing students from the University of Valencia recruited during the 2018–19 academic year. An exploratory factor analysis was carried out using principal components and varimax rotation. The factor analysis extracted two factors that explained 32.10% of the total variance. Factor 1 explains 22.19% and refers to the “adverse results” of clinical practice (29 items), and factor 2 explains 9.62% and refers to “preventive practices” (24 items). Both factors presented high reliability (Cronbach’s alpha 0.902 and 0.905, respectively). The Spanish version of the EAAPE is valid and reliable for measuring the perception of adverse events associated with nursing practice and the presence of prevention measures.

The Surgical Safety Checklist from the resident's perspective. Observational study

Introduction: The Surgical Safety Checklist implemented by the World Health Organization has proven to decrease perioperative morbidity and mortality; however, the barriers and limitations to its implementation are consistently reported in the literature. Objective: To establish the level of appropriation of the surgical safety checklist in the training of human resources in anesthesiology, in addition to identifying the perception and the level of implementation of such checklist at the national scale.   Methods: Descriptive cross-sectional study conducted through a survey administered to the residents of anesthesiology in Colombia. Likert-type questions were included, distributed into three domains: appropriation, perception and implementation. Results: 215 answers corresponding to 54.5 % of the population were analyzed, comprising participants from all of the anesthesiology programs in the country. 20% of the residents have never been subject to formal academic reviews about checklists, and this trend did not change throughout the residency; 97.2 % considers that the implementation of the lists improves the safety of surgical procedures and 40 % have seen rejection or indifference by surgeons. 80.5 % of the residents have seen the frequent use of the checklist, while only 13.5% have seen the use of the checklist during the three surgical moments – before the induction of anesthesia, before the surgical incision, and before the patient leaves the operating room -; 88 % have observed that the form is completed without actually doing the verification. Conclusions: There is limited exposure to education about the surgical safety checklist in anesthesiology postgraduate programs in the country. The residents have a favorable perception about the value of the list, however, there are some shortcomings in its administration.