Utilization of surgical safety checklists by urological surgeons in Germany: A nationwide prospective survey

被引：4

作者：

Borgmann H. ^{[1
]}

Helbig S. ^{[1
]}

Reiter M.A. ^{[1
]}

Hüsch T. ^{[1
]}

Schilling D. ^{[1
]}

Tsaur I. ^{[1
]}

Haferkamp A. ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Germany, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, Frankfurt

来源：

Patient Safety in Surgery | / 9卷 / 1期

关键词：

Communication; Patient safety; Quality management; Risk reduction; Urology;

D O I：

10.1186/s13037-015-0082-5

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

Objectives: We aimed to investigate the contemporary usage rate and habits of the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) in German urological departments. Methods: We designed a 26-item questionnaire that was sent to all urological departments in Germany. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the usage rate of the SSC. Secondary aims were to compare perioperative characteristics of users vs. non-users of the SSC and to assess circumstances of the SSC application. Results: A total of 213 of 234 (91 %) urological departments were users of the SSC, and 21 (9 %) were non-users. SSC users had more often a standard protocol, took less time and had fewer people involved for checking perioperative patient data compared to non-users. Financial budgeting for the SSC existed in 55 (24 %) departments and for patient safety in 73 (32 %) departments. Conclusions: The usage rate of the SSC in urological departments in Germany is high despite restricted financial budgeting. Users of the SSC profit by saving time and manpower for checking perioperative patient data. © 2015 Borgmann et al.

引用

共 24 条

[1] Weiser T.G., Regenbogen S.E., Thompson K.D., Haynes A.B., Lipsitz S.R., Berry W.R., Et al., An estimation of the global volume of surgery: a modelling strategy based on available data, Lancet, 372, 9633, pp. 139-144, (2008)
[2] Anderson O., Davis R., Hanna G.B., Vincent C.A., Surgical adverse events: a systematic review, Am J Surg, 206, 2, pp. 253-262, (2013)
[3] Gawande A.A., Thomas E.J., Zinner M.J., Brennan T.A., The incidence and nature of surgical adverse events in Colorado and Utah in 1992, Surgery, 126, 1, pp. 66-75, (1999)
[4] Chen C.C., Ou Y.C., Yang C.K., Chiu K.Y., Wang S.S., Su C.K., Et al., Malfunction of the da Vinci robotic system in urology, Int J Urol, 19, 8, pp. 736-740, (2012)
[5] Two systems replace traditional paper-based informed-consent process with an electronic timeout checklist integrated into electronic records, Health management technology, 31, 4, pp. 28-29, (2010)
[6] WHO's patient-safety checklist for surgery, Lancet, 372, 9632, (2008)
[7] Haynes A.B., Weiser T.G., Berry W.R., Lipsitz S.R., Breizat A.H., Dellinger E.P., Et al., A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population, N Engl J Med, 360, 5, pp. 491-499, (2009)
[8] de Vries E.N., Prins H.A., Crolla R.M., den Outer A.J., van Andel G., van Helden S.H., Et al., Effect of a comprehensive surgical safety system on patient outcomes, N Engl J Med, 363, 20, pp. 1928-1937, (2010)
[9] Burns K.E., Duffett M., Kho M.E., Meade M.O., Adhikari N.K., Sinuff T., Et al., A guide for the design and conduct of self-administered surveys of clinicians, CMAJ, 179, 3, pp. 245-252, (2008)
[10] Eysenbach G., Improving the quality of Web surveys: the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES), J Med Internet Res, 6, 3, (2004)

← 1 2 3 →