核对所有方框:关于何时以及如何有效使用核对表的核对表

IF 5.6 1区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMJ Quality & Safety Pub Date : 2024-05-02 DOI:10.1136/bmjqs-2023-016934
Myrtede Alfred, Laura H Barg-Walkow, Joseph R Keebler, Alex Chaparro
{"title":"核对所有方框:关于何时以及如何有效使用核对表的核对表","authors":"Myrtede Alfred, Laura H Barg-Walkow, Joseph R Keebler, Alex Chaparro","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2023-016934","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Checklists are a type of cognitive aid used to guide task performance; they have been adopted as an important safety intervention throughout many high-risk industries. They have become an ubiquitous tool in many medical settings due to being easily accessible and perceived as easy to design and implement. However, there is a lack of understanding for when to use checklists and how to design them, leading to substandard use and suboptimal effectiveness of this intervention in medical settings. The design of a checklist must consider many factors including what types of errors it is intended to address, the experience and technical competencies of the targeted users, and the specific tools or equipment that will be used. Although several taxonomies have been proposed for classifying checklist types, there is, however, little guidance on selecting the most appropriate checklist type, nor how differences in user expertise can influence the design of the checklist. Therefore, we developed an algorithm to provide guidance on checklist use and design. The algorithm, intended to support conception and content/design decisions, was created based on the synthesis of the literature on checklists and our experience developing and observing the use of checklists in clinical environments. We then refined the algorithm iteratively based on subject matter experts’ feedback provided at each iteration. The final algorithm included two parts: the first part provided guidance on the system safety issues for which a checklist is best suited, and the second part provided guidance on which type of checklist should be developed with considerations of the end users’ expertise.","PeriodicalId":9077,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Quality & Safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Checking all the boxes: a checklist for when and how to use checklists effectively\",\"authors\":\"Myrtede Alfred, Laura H Barg-Walkow, Joseph R Keebler, Alex Chaparro\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjqs-2023-016934\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Checklists are a type of cognitive aid used to guide task performance; they have been adopted as an important safety intervention throughout many high-risk industries. They have become an ubiquitous tool in many medical settings due to being easily accessible and perceived as easy to design and implement. However, there is a lack of understanding for when to use checklists and how to design them, leading to substandard use and suboptimal effectiveness of this intervention in medical settings. The design of a checklist must consider many factors including what types of errors it is intended to address, the experience and technical competencies of the targeted users, and the specific tools or equipment that will be used. Although several taxonomies have been proposed for classifying checklist types, there is, however, little guidance on selecting the most appropriate checklist type, nor how differences in user expertise can influence the design of the checklist. Therefore, we developed an algorithm to provide guidance on checklist use and design. The algorithm, intended to support conception and content/design decisions, was created based on the synthesis of the literature on checklists and our experience developing and observing the use of checklists in clinical environments. We then refined the algorithm iteratively based on subject matter experts’ feedback provided at each iteration. The final algorithm included two parts: the first part provided guidance on the system safety issues for which a checklist is best suited, and the second part provided guidance on which type of checklist should be developed with considerations of the end users’ expertise.\",\"PeriodicalId\":9077,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Quality & Safety\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Quality & Safety\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2023-016934\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Quality & Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2023-016934","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

核对表是一种用于指导任务执行的认知辅助工具;在许多高风险行业中,核对表已被作为一种重要的安全干预措施。在许多医疗环境中,核对表已经成为一种无处不在的工具,因为核对表很容易获取,而且被认为易于设计和实施。然而,人们对何时使用核对表以及如何设计核对表缺乏了解,导致在医疗环境中这种干预措施的使用不达标,效果不理想。设计核对表必须考虑许多因素,包括核对表要解决的错误类型、目标用户的经验和技术能力,以及将要使用的特定工具或设备。虽然已经提出了几种核对表类型的分类标准,但对于如何选择最合适的核对表类型,以及用户专业知识的差异会如何影响核对表的设计,几乎没有任何指导。因此,我们开发了一种算法,为核对表的使用和设计提供指导。该算法旨在为构思和内容/设计决策提供支持,是在综合了有关核对表的文献以及我们在临床环境中开发和观察核对表使用的经验的基础上创建的。然后,我们根据主题专家在每次迭代中提供的反馈,对算法进行了反复改进。最终算法包括两个部分:第一部分就最适合使用核对表的系统安全问题提供指导,第二部分就应开发哪种类型的核对表提供指导,同时考虑到最终用户的专业知识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Checking all the boxes: a checklist for when and how to use checklists effectively
Checklists are a type of cognitive aid used to guide task performance; they have been adopted as an important safety intervention throughout many high-risk industries. They have become an ubiquitous tool in many medical settings due to being easily accessible and perceived as easy to design and implement. However, there is a lack of understanding for when to use checklists and how to design them, leading to substandard use and suboptimal effectiveness of this intervention in medical settings. The design of a checklist must consider many factors including what types of errors it is intended to address, the experience and technical competencies of the targeted users, and the specific tools or equipment that will be used. Although several taxonomies have been proposed for classifying checklist types, there is, however, little guidance on selecting the most appropriate checklist type, nor how differences in user expertise can influence the design of the checklist. Therefore, we developed an algorithm to provide guidance on checklist use and design. The algorithm, intended to support conception and content/design decisions, was created based on the synthesis of the literature on checklists and our experience developing and observing the use of checklists in clinical environments. We then refined the algorithm iteratively based on subject matter experts’ feedback provided at each iteration. The final algorithm included two parts: the first part provided guidance on the system safety issues for which a checklist is best suited, and the second part provided guidance on which type of checklist should be developed with considerations of the end users’ expertise.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Quality & Safety
BMJ Quality & Safety HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
7.40%
发文量
104
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Quality & Safety (previously Quality & Safety in Health Care) is an international peer review publication providing research, opinions, debates and reviews for academics, clinicians and healthcare managers focused on the quality and safety of health care and the science of improvement. The journal receives approximately 1000 manuscripts a year and has an acceptance rate for original research of 12%. Time from submission to first decision averages 22 days and accepted articles are typically published online within 20 days. Its current impact factor is 3.281.
期刊最新文献
From insight to action: tackling underperformance in health professionals. Experiences with diagnostic delay among underserved racial and ethnic patients: a systematic review of the qualitative literature. County-level racial bias is associated with worse care for white and especially black older US adults: a cross-sectional observational study. Beyond polypharmacy to the brave new world of minimum datasets and artificial intelligence: thumbing a nose to Henry. Large language models in healthcare information research: making progress in an emerging field.
×
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