In a comparison of 3760 patients observed before implementation of the checklist with 3820 patients observed after implementation, the total number of complications per 100 patients decreased from 27.3 (95% confidence interval [CI], 25.9 to 28.7) to 16.7 (95% CI, 15.6 to 17.9), for an absolute risk reduction of 10.6 (95% CI, 8.7 to 12.4). The proportion of patients with one or more complications decreased from 15.4% to 10.6% (P<0.001). In-hospital mortality decreased from 1.5% (95% CI, 1.2 to 2.0) to 0.8% (95% CI, 0.6 to 1.1), for an absolute risk reduction of 0.7 percentage points (95% CI, 0.2 to 1.2). Outcomes did not change in the control hospitals. Conclusions Implementation of this comprehensive checklist was associated with a reduction in surgical complications and mortality in hospitals with a high standard of care. (Netherlands Trial Register number, NTR1943.)

/pdf/effect-of-a-comprehensive-surgical-safety-system-on-patient-5ah6l7qbf9.pdf

Effect of a comprehensive surgical safety system on patient outcomes

Background Evidence from observational studies that the use of surgical safety checklists results in striking improvements in surgical outcomes led to the rapid adoption of such checklists worldwide. However, the effect of mandatory adoption of surgical safety checklists is unclear. A policy encouraging the universal adoption of checklists by hospitals in Ontario, Canada, provided a natural experiment to assess the effectiveness of checklists in typical practice settings. Methods We surveyed all acute care hospitals in Ontario to determine when surgical safety checklists were adopted. Using administrative health data, we compared operative mortality, rate of surgical complications, length of hospital stay, and rates of hospital readmission and emergency department visits within 30 days after discharge among patients undergoing a variety of surgical procedures before and after adoption of a checklist. Results During 3-month periods before and after adoption of a surgical safety checklist, a total of 101 hospitals performed 109,341 and 106,370 procedures, respectively. The adjusted risk of death during a hospital stay or within 30 days after surgery was 0.71% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.76) before implementation of a surgical checklist and 0.65% (95% CI, 0.60 to 0.70) afterward (odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.03; P = 0.13). The adjusted risk of surgical complications was 3.86% (95% CI, 3.76 to 3.96) before implementation and 3.82% (95% CI, 3.71 to 3.92) afterward (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.03; P = 0.29). Conclusions Implementation of surgical safety checklists in Ontario, Canada, was not associated with significant reductions in operative mortality or complications. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.)

/pdf/introduction-of-surgical-safety-checklists-in-ontario-canada-mddahpjpgz.pdf

Introduction of Surgical Safety Checklists in Ontario, Canada

RESULTS A total of 17 operating-room teams participated in 106 simulated surgical-crisis scenarios. Failure to adhere to lifesaving processes of care was less common during simulations when checklists were available (6% of steps missed when checklists were available vs. 23% when they were unavailable, P<0.001). The results were similar in a multivariate model that accounted for clustering within teams, with adjustment for institution, scenario, and learning and fatigue effects (adjusted relative risk, 0.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.18 to 0.42; P<0.001). Every team performed better when the crisis checklists were available than when they were not. A total of 97% of the participants reported that if one of these crises occurred while they were undergoing an operation, they would want the checklist used. CONCLUSIONS In a high-fidelity simulation study, checklist use was associated with significant improvement in the management of operating-room crises. These findings suggest that checklists for use during operating-room crises have the potential to improve surgical care. (Funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.)

https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMsa1204720

Simulation-Based Trial of Surgical-Crisis Checklists

Background Formal evaluations of programmes are an important source of learning about the challenges faced in improving quality in healthcare and how they can be addressed. The authors aimed to integrate lessons from evaluations of the Health Foundation's improvement programmes with relevant literature.

Methods The authors analysed evaluation reports relating to five Health Foundation improvement programmes using a form of ‘best fit’ synthesis, where a pre-existing framework was used for initial coding and then updated in response to the emerging analysis. A rapid narrative review of relevant literature was also undertaken.

Results The authors identified ten key challenges: convincing people that there is a problem that is relevant to them; convincing them that the solution chosen is the right one; getting data collection and monitoring systems right; excess ambitions and ‘projectness’; organisational cultures, capacities and contexts; tribalism and lack of staff engagement; leadership; incentivising participation and ‘hard edges’; securing sustainability; and risk of unintended consequences. The authors identified a range of tactics that may be used to respond to these challenges.

Discussion Securing improvement may be hard and slow and faces many challenges. Formal evaluations assist in recognising the nature of these challenges and help in addressing them.

https://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/qhc/21/10/876.full.pdf

Ten challenges in improving quality in healthcare: lessons from the Health Foundation's programme evaluations and relevant literature.

Objectives. People with dementia are susceptible to adverse effects of medicines. However, they are not always closely monitored. We explored (1) feasibility and (2) clinical impact of nurse-led medication monitoring. Design. Feasibility “before-and-after” intervention study. Setting. Three care homes in Wales. Participants. Eleven service users diagnosed with dementia, taking at least one antipsychotic, antidepressant, or antiepileptic medicine. Intervention. West Wales Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) Profile for Mental Health Medicines. Outcome Measures. (1) Feasibility: recruitment, retention, and implementation. (2) Clinical impact: previously undocumented problems identified and ameliorated, as recorded in participants’ records before and after introduction of the profile, and one month later. Results. Nurses recruited and retained 11 of 29 eligible service users. The profile took 20–25 minutes to implement, caused no harm, and supplemented usual care. Initially, the profile identified previously undocumented problems for all participants (mean 12.7 (SD 4.7)). One month later, some problems had been ameliorated (mean 4.9 (3.6)). Clinical gains included new prescriptions to manage pain (2 participants), psoriasis (1), Parkinsonian symptoms (1), rash (1), dose reduction of benzodiazepines (1), new care plans for oral hygiene, skin problems, and constipation. Conclusions. Participants benefited from structured nurse-led medication monitoring. Clinical trials of our ADR Profile are feasible and necessary.

/pdf/medication-monitoring-for-people-with-dementia-in-care-homes-uu2to61kq2.pdf

Medication Monitoring for People with Dementia in Care Homes: The Feasibility and Clinical Impact of Nurse-Led Monitoring

Introduction: Adverse events in hospitals constitute a serious problem with grave consequences. Many studies have been conducted to gain an insight into this problem, but a general overview of the data is lacking. We performed a systematic review of the literature on inhospital adverse events. Methods: A formal search of Embase, Cochrane and Medline was performed. Studies were reviewed independently for methodology, inclusion and exclusion criteria and endpoints. Primary endpoints were incidence of in-hospital adverse events and percentage of preventability. Secondary endpoints were adverse event outcome and subdivision by provider of care, location and type of event. Results: Eight studies including a total of 74 485 patient records were selected. The median overall incidence of inhospital adverse events was 9.2%, with a median percentage of preventability of 43.5%. More than half (56.3%) of patients experienced no or minor disability, whereas 7.4% of events were lethal. Operation- (39.6%) and medication-related (15.1%) events constituted the majority. We present a summary of evidence-based interventions aimed at these categories of events. Conclusions: Adverse events during hospital admission affect nearly one out of 10 patients. A substantial part of these events are preventable. Since a large proportion of the in-hospital events are operation- or drug-related, interventions aimed at preventing these events have the potential to make a substantial difference.

https://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/qhc/17/3/216.full.pdf

The incidence and nature of in-hospital adverse events: a systematic review

Introduction: A large number of preventable adverse events are encountered during hospital admission and in particular around surgical procedures. Checklists may well be effective in surgery to prevent errors and adverse events. We developed, validated and evaluated a SURgical PAtient Safety System (SURPASS) checklist. Methods: A prototype checklist was constructed based on literature on surgical errors and adverse events, and on human-factors literature. The items on the theory-based checklist were validated by comparison with process deviations (safety risk events) during real-time observation of the surgical pathway. Subsequently, the usability of the checklist was evaluated in daily clinical practice. Results: The multidisciplinary SURPASS checklist accompanies the patient during each step of the surgical pathway and is completed by different members of the team. During 171 high-risk surgical procedures, 593 process deviations were observed. Of the deviations suitable for coverage by a checklist, 96% corresponded to an item on the checklist. Users were generally positive about the checklist, but a number of logistic improvements were suggested. Conclusion: The SURPASS checklist covers the vast majority of process deviations suitable for checklist assessment and can be applied in clinical practice relatively simply. SURPASS is the first validated patient safety checklist for the entire surgical pathway.

/pdf/development-and-validation-of-the-surgical-patient-safety-4e7jzbn0zo.pdf

Development and validation of the SURgical PAtient Safety System (SURPASS) checklist

Purpose
To develop a specific RADiological Patient Safety System (RADPASS) checklist for interventional radiology and to assess the effect of this checklist on health care processes of radiological interventions.

/pdf/a-checklist-to-improve-patient-safety-in-interventional-3a2j2gd8pa.pdf

A Checklist to Improve Patient Safety in Interventional Radiology

Introduction More than half of in-hospital adverse events can be attributed to a surgical discipline. Checklists can effectively decrease errors and adverse events. However, the mechanisms by which checklists lead to increased safety are unclear. This study aimed to assess the number, nature and timing of incidents intercepted by use of the Surgical Patient Safety System (SURPASS) checklist, a patient-specific multidisciplinary checklist that covers the entire surgical patient pathway.

Methods The checklist was implemented in two academic hospitals and four teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. Users of the checklist had three options for each item that was checked: ‘not applicable’, ‘yes’ and ‘intercepted by checklist’. In each hospital, the first 1000 completed checklists were entered into an online central database.

Results In six participating hospitals, 6313 checklists were collected. One or more incidents were intercepted in 2562 checklists (40.6%). In total, 6312 incidents were intercepted. After correction for the number of items and the extent of adherence in each part of the checklist, the number of intercepted incidents was highest in the preoperative and postoperative stages.

Conclusions The checklist intercepts many potentially harmful incidents across all stages of the surgical patient pathway. The majority of incidents were intercepted in the preoperative and postoperative stages of the pathway. The degree to which these incidents would have been intercepted by a single checklist in the operating room only, compared with a checklist for the entire surgical pathway, remains a subject for future study.

https://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/qhc/21/6/503.full.pdf

Marja A. Boermeester

Papers

The incidence and nature of in-hospital adverse events: a systematic review

Effect of a comprehensive surgical safety system on patient outcomes

Development and validation of the SURgical PAtient Safety System (SURPASS) checklist

A Checklist to Improve Patient Safety in Interventional Radiology

Nature and timing of incidents intercepted by the SURPASS checklist in surgical patients