手术安全检查表对提供者和患者结果的影响:系统回顾

B. Armstrong, I. A. Dutescu, Lori Nemoy, Ekta Bhavsar, Diana N. Carter, Kimberley-Dale Ng, S. Boet, P. Trbovich, V. Palter
{"title":"手术安全检查表对提供者和患者结果的影响:系统回顾","authors":"B. Armstrong, I. A. Dutescu, Lori Nemoy, Ekta Bhavsar, Diana N. Carter, Kimberley-Dale Ng, S. Boet, P. Trbovich, V. Palter","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2021-014361","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Despite being implemented for over a decade, literature describing how the surgical safety checklist (SSC) is completed by operating room (OR) teams and how this relates to its effectiveness is scarce. This systematic review aimed to: (1) quantify how many studies reported SSC completion versus described how the SSC was completed; (2) evaluate the impact of the SSC on provider outcomes (Communication, case Understanding, Safety Culture, CUSC), patient outcomes (complications, mortality rates) and moderators of these relationships. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted using Medline, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science on 10 January 2020. We included providers who treat human patients and completed any type of SSC in any OR or simulation centre. Statistical directional findings were extracted for provider and patient outcomes and key factors (eg, attentiveness) were used to determine moderating effects. Results 300 studies were included in the analysis comprising over 7 302 674 operations and 2 480 748 providers and patients. Thirty-eight per cent of studies provided at least some description of how the SSC was completed. Of the studies that described SSC completion, a clearer positive relationship was observed concerning the SSC’s influence on provider outcomes (CUSC) compared with patient outcomes (complications and mortality), as well as related moderators. Conclusion There is a scarcity of research that examines how the SSC is completed and how this influences safety outcomes. Examining how a checklist is completed is critical for understanding why the checklist is successful in some instances and not others.","PeriodicalId":49653,"journal":{"name":"Quality & Safety in Health Care","volume":"31 1","pages":"463 - 478"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of the surgical safety checklist on provider and patient outcomes: a systematic review\",\"authors\":\"B. Armstrong, I. A. Dutescu, Lori Nemoy, Ekta Bhavsar, Diana N. Carter, Kimberley-Dale Ng, S. Boet, P. Trbovich, V. Palter\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjqs-2021-014361\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background Despite being implemented for over a decade, literature describing how the surgical safety checklist (SSC) is completed by operating room (OR) teams and how this relates to its effectiveness is scarce. This systematic review aimed to: (1) quantify how many studies reported SSC completion versus described how the SSC was completed; (2) evaluate the impact of the SSC on provider outcomes (Communication, case Understanding, Safety Culture, CUSC), patient outcomes (complications, mortality rates) and moderators of these relationships. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted using Medline, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science on 10 January 2020. We included providers who treat human patients and completed any type of SSC in any OR or simulation centre. Statistical directional findings were extracted for provider and patient outcomes and key factors (eg, attentiveness) were used to determine moderating effects. Results 300 studies were included in the analysis comprising over 7 302 674 operations and 2 480 748 providers and patients. Thirty-eight per cent of studies provided at least some description of how the SSC was completed. Of the studies that described SSC completion, a clearer positive relationship was observed concerning the SSC’s influence on provider outcomes (CUSC) compared with patient outcomes (complications and mortality), as well as related moderators. Conclusion There is a scarcity of research that examines how the SSC is completed and how this influences safety outcomes. Examining how a checklist is completed is critical for understanding why the checklist is successful in some instances and not others.\",\"PeriodicalId\":49653,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quality & Safety in Health Care\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"463 - 478\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quality & Safety in Health Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2021-014361\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality & Safety in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2021-014361","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

背景尽管实施了十多年,但描述手术室(OR)团队如何完成手术安全检查表(SSC)以及这与其有效性的关系的文献很少。该系统综述旨在:(1)量化有多少研究报告了SSC完成,而描述了SSC是如何完成的;(2) 评估SSC对提供者结果(沟通、病例理解、安全文化、CUSC)、患者结果(并发症、死亡率)和这些关系的调节因素的影响。方法于2020年1月10日使用Medline、CINAHL、Embase、PsycINFO、PubMed、Scopus和Web of Science进行系统的文献检索。我们包括在任何手术室或模拟中心治疗人类患者并完成任何类型SSC的提供者。提取提供者和患者结果的统计方向性结果,并使用关键因素(如注意力)来确定调节效果。结果分析中包括300项研究,包括7项以上 302 674次操作和2次 480 748名提供者和患者。38%的研究至少对SSC是如何完成的提供了一些描述。在描述SSC完成情况的研究中,观察到SSC对提供者结果(CUSC)的影响与患者结果(并发症和死亡率)以及相关调节因子之间存在更明确的正相关关系。结论很少有研究来检查SSC是如何完成的,以及这如何影响安全结果。检查检查表是如何完成的,对于理解为什么检查表在某些情况下是成功的而在其他情况下不是成功的至关重要。
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
Effect of the surgical safety checklist on provider and patient outcomes: a systematic review
Background Despite being implemented for over a decade, literature describing how the surgical safety checklist (SSC) is completed by operating room (OR) teams and how this relates to its effectiveness is scarce. This systematic review aimed to: (1) quantify how many studies reported SSC completion versus described how the SSC was completed; (2) evaluate the impact of the SSC on provider outcomes (Communication, case Understanding, Safety Culture, CUSC), patient outcomes (complications, mortality rates) and moderators of these relationships. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted using Medline, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science on 10 January 2020. We included providers who treat human patients and completed any type of SSC in any OR or simulation centre. Statistical directional findings were extracted for provider and patient outcomes and key factors (eg, attentiveness) were used to determine moderating effects. Results 300 studies were included in the analysis comprising over 7 302 674 operations and 2 480 748 providers and patients. Thirty-eight per cent of studies provided at least some description of how the SSC was completed. Of the studies that described SSC completion, a clearer positive relationship was observed concerning the SSC’s influence on provider outcomes (CUSC) compared with patient outcomes (complications and mortality), as well as related moderators. Conclusion There is a scarcity of research that examines how the SSC is completed and how this influences safety outcomes. Examining how a checklist is completed is critical for understanding why the checklist is successful in some instances and not others.
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
Quality & Safety in Health Care
Quality & Safety in Health Care 医学-卫生保健
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Accuracy of telephone triage for predicting adverse outcomes in suspected COVID-19: an observational cohort study. Quality framework for remote antenatal care: qualitative study with women, healthcare professionals and system-level stakeholders. Addressing social determinants of health in primary care: a quasi-experimental study using unannounced standardised patients to evaluate the impact of audit/feedback on physicians' rates of identifying and responding to social needs. Reporting on implementation trials with null findings: the need for concurrent process evaluation reporting. Antibiotic documentation: death by a thousand clicks.
×
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