Surgical safety checklist audits may be misleading! Improving the implementation and adherence of the surgical safety checklist: a quality improvement project

A systems approach to managing the risk of healthcare acquired infection in an acute hospital setting supported by human factors ergonomics, data science, data governance and AI

Innovative approaches are needed for managing risk and system change in healthcare. This paper presents a case study of a project that took place over two years, taking a systems approach to managing the risk of healthcare acquired infection in an acute hospital setting, supported by an Access Risk Knowledge Platform which brings together Human Factors Ergonomics, Data Science, Data Governance and AI expertise. Evidence for change including meeting notes and use of the platform were studied. The work on the project focused on first systematically building a rich picture of the current situation from a transdisciplinary perspective. This allowed for understanding risk in context and developing a better capability to support enterprise risk management and accountability. From there a linking of operational and risk data took place which led to mapping of the risk pattern in the hospital.

CheckPOINT: a simple tool to measure Surgical Safety Checklist implementation fidelity

INTRODUCTION

The WHO Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) is a communication tool that improves teamwork and patient outcomes. SSC effectiveness is dependent on implementation fidelity. Administrative audits fail to capture most aspects of SSC implementation fidelity (ie, team communication and engagement). Existing research tools assess behaviours during checklist performance, but were not designed for routine quality assurance and improvement. We aimed to create a simple tool to assess SSC implementation fidelity, and to test its reliability using video simulations, and usability in clinical practice.

METHODS

The Checklist Performance Observation for Improvement (CheckPOINT) tool underwent two rounds of face validity testing with surgical safety experts, clinicians and quality improvement specialists. Four categories were developed: checklist adherence, communication effectiveness, attitude and engagement. We created a 90 min training programme, and four trained raters independently scored 37 video simulations using the tool. We calculated intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) to assess inter-rater reliability (ICC>0.75 indicating excellent reliability). We then trained two observers, who tested the tool in the operating room. We interviewed the observers to determine tool usability.

RESULTS

The CheckPOINT tool had excellent inter-rater reliability across SSC phases. The ICC was 0.83 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.98) for the sign-in, 0.77 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.92) for the time-out and 0.79 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.99) for the sign-out. During field testing, observers reported CheckPOINT was easy to use. In 98 operating room observations, the total median (IQR) score was 25 (23-28), checklist adherence was 7 (6-7), communication effectiveness was 6 (6-7), attitude was 6 (6-7) and engagement was 6 (5-7).

CONCLUSIONS

CheckPOINT is a simple and reliable tool to assess SSC implementation fidelity and identify areas of focus for improvement efforts. Although CheckPOINT would benefit from further testing, it offers a low-resource alternative to existing research tools and captures elements of adherence and team behaviours.

Surgical safety checklist compliance process as a moral hazard: An institutional ethnography

BACKGROUND

Charting is an essential component of professional nursing practice and is arguably a key element of patient safety in surgery: without proper, objective, and timely documentation, both benign and tragical errors can occur. From surgery on wrong patients to wrong limbs, to the omission of antibiotics administration, many harms can happen in the operating room. Documentation has thus served as a safeguard for patient safety, professional responsibility, and professional accountability. In this context, we were puzzled by the practices we observed with respect to charting compliance with the surgical safety checklist (SSC) during a study of surgical teams in a large, urban teaching hospital in Canada (pseudonym 'C&C').

METHODS

This article leverages institutional ethnography and a subset of data from a larger study to describe and explain the social organisation of the system that monitored surgical safety compliance at C&C from the standpoint of operating room nurses. This data included fieldnotes from observations of 51 surgical cases, on-the-spot interviews with nurses, formal interviews with individuals who were involved in the design and implementation of the SSC, and open-ended questions from two rounds of survey of OR teams.

FINDINGS

We found that the compliance form and not the SSC itself formed the basis for reporting. To meet hospital accuracy in charting goals and legislated compliance documentation reporting requirements nurses 'pre-charted' compliance with the surgical checklist. The adoption of this workaround technically violated nursing charting principles and put them in ethically untenable positions.

CONCLUSIONS

Documenting compliance of the SSC constituted a moral hazard, constrained nurses' autonomy and moral agency, and obscured poor checklist adherence. The findings highlight how local and extra local texts, technologies and relations create ethical issues, raise questions about the effectiveness of resulting data for decision-making and contribute to ongoing conversations about nursing workarounds.