The WHO Surgical Safety Checklist in Belgian hospitals: Changes in use, knowledge, opinions and perception of pressure among operating room professionals between 2016 and 2021

IF 0.1 Q4 ANESTHESIOLOGY Acta anaesthesiologica Belgica Pub Date : 2023-09-20 DOI:10.56126/74.3.15
L Huyghe, W Swinnen, H Peleman
{"title":"The WHO Surgical Safety Checklist in Belgian hospitals: Changes in use, knowledge, opinions and perception of pressure among operating room professionals between 2016 and 2021","authors":"L Huyghe, W Swinnen, H Peleman","doi":"10.56126/74.3.15","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Implementing a Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) poses several challenges. Operating room (OR) professionals’ opinions on SSC determine whether it is used. Additionally, OR professionals often complain of pressure for execution and presence of inappropriate components in the SSC. Objectives: This study aimed to investigate whether the use of and opinions on SSC improved, and whether feelings of pressure and opinions on the appropriateness of the items changed. Design: Repeated cross-sectional study. Setting: An online survey was sent to all Belgian OR professionals (nurses, surgeons, and anesthesiologists) in 2016 and 2021. Methods: Respondent characteristics were summarized using the proportions of discrete variables. Other data were analyzed using Pearson’s chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test. A p-value (0.01) was considered statistically significant. Results: In 2021, participation increased from 1419 to 2166 OR professionals. More participants stated that they used SSC, and that its use was more systematic. Opinions about SSC revealed a significant change in patients’ appreciation of SSC use (more positive) and signs of a lack of knowledge of the patient file (less negative). More negative feelings were observed when the SSC was not used. The OR staff experienced less time pressure to complete the SSC. Surgeons, anesthesiologists, and colleagues exerted more pressure on SSC use. The pressure for not using the SSC was low. Seven of the 22 SSC components were judged more appropriate by 2021. ‘Time Out’ improved more than ‘Sign In’ or ‘Sign Out’. Team member introduction remained the least-supported component. Conclusion: SSC was used more often in 2021. Most of the opinions were positive. There was more pressure to use SSC. Most components were considered appropriate, except for team introduction. Local adjustments can align needs with the staff’s opinions. However, crucial components must be maintained.","PeriodicalId":7024,"journal":{"name":"Acta anaesthesiologica Belgica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta anaesthesiologica Belgica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56126/74.3.15","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Implementing a Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) poses several challenges. Operating room (OR) professionals’ opinions on SSC determine whether it is used. Additionally, OR professionals often complain of pressure for execution and presence of inappropriate components in the SSC. Objectives: This study aimed to investigate whether the use of and opinions on SSC improved, and whether feelings of pressure and opinions on the appropriateness of the items changed. Design: Repeated cross-sectional study. Setting: An online survey was sent to all Belgian OR professionals (nurses, surgeons, and anesthesiologists) in 2016 and 2021. Methods: Respondent characteristics were summarized using the proportions of discrete variables. Other data were analyzed using Pearson’s chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test. A p-value (0.01) was considered statistically significant. Results: In 2021, participation increased from 1419 to 2166 OR professionals. More participants stated that they used SSC, and that its use was more systematic. Opinions about SSC revealed a significant change in patients’ appreciation of SSC use (more positive) and signs of a lack of knowledge of the patient file (less negative). More negative feelings were observed when the SSC was not used. The OR staff experienced less time pressure to complete the SSC. Surgeons, anesthesiologists, and colleagues exerted more pressure on SSC use. The pressure for not using the SSC was low. Seven of the 22 SSC components were judged more appropriate by 2021. ‘Time Out’ improved more than ‘Sign In’ or ‘Sign Out’. Team member introduction remained the least-supported component. Conclusion: SSC was used more often in 2021. Most of the opinions were positive. There was more pressure to use SSC. Most components were considered appropriate, except for team introduction. Local adjustments can align needs with the staff’s opinions. However, crucial components must be maintained.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
世卫组织比利时医院手术安全清单:2016年至2021年手术室专业人员使用、知识、意见和压力感知的变化
背景:实施手术安全检查表(SSC)提出了几个挑战。手术室专业人员对SSC的意见决定了是否使用SSC。此外,OR专业人员经常抱怨执行压力和SSC中存在不适当的组件。目的:本研究旨在探讨学生对SSC的使用和意见是否有所改善,压力感受和对项目适当性的看法是否有所改变。设计:重复横断面研究。背景:在2016年和2021年向所有比利时手术室专业人员(护士、外科医生和麻醉师)发送了一份在线调查。方法:采用离散变量的比例法总结被调查者的特征。其他数据采用Pearson卡方检验或Fisher精确检验进行分析。p值(0.01)认为有统计学意义。结果:2021年,参与的OR专业人员从1419人增加到2166人。更多的参与者表示他们使用SSC,而且使用SSC更有系统。关于SSC的意见显示,患者对SSC使用的欣赏程度发生了显著变化(更积极),对患者档案缺乏了解的迹象(更消极)。当不使用SSC时,观察到更多的负面情绪。手术室工作人员完成SSC的时间压力较小。外科医生、麻醉师和同事对SSC的使用施加了更大的压力。不使用SSC的压力很低。到2021年,22个SSC组件中的7个被认为更合适。“暂停”比“登录”或“注销”改进得更多。团队成员介绍仍然是支持最少的组件。结论:2021年SSC的使用频率较高。大多数的意见都是正面的。使用SSC的压力更大。大多数组件被认为是合适的,除了团队介绍。局部调整可以使需求与员工的意见保持一致。但是,必须维护关键组件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
期刊介绍: L’Acta Anaesthesiologica Belgica est le journal de la SBAR, publié 4 fois par an. L’Acta a été publié pour la première fois en 1950. Depuis 1973 l’Acta est publié dans la langue Anglaise, ce qui a été résulté à un rayonnement plus internationaux. Depuis lors l’Acta est devenu un journal à ne pas manquer dans le domaine d’Anesthésie Belge, offrant e.a. les textes du congrès annuel, les Research Meetings, … Vous en trouvez aussi les dates des Research Meetings, du congrès annuel et des autres réunions.
期刊最新文献
Long-term cognitive dysfunction after COVID ARDS Trends in female authorship in Acta Anaesthesiologica Belgica from 2005 to 2021 General anesthesia for maternal surgery during pregnancy: dogmas, myths and evidence, a narrative review Clinical relevance of nocebo effects in anesthesia practice: a narrative review Gender equality and equity in anaesthesia research: Why are we still talking about numbers?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1