4.0 Article

Use of an intraoperative checklist to decrease the incidence of re-exploration for postoperative bleeding after cardiac surgery

Journal

INTERACTIVE CARDIOVASCULAR AND THORACIC SURGERY
Volume 25, Issue 4, Pages 555-558

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/icvts/ivx130

Keywords

Re-exploration; Bleeding; Checklist; Outcome measures

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVES: We have implemented an intraoperative checklist aiming to reduce the incidence of re-exploration for bleeding after cardiac surgery. The present report addresses the results of adopting such a checklist regarding the incidence of postoperative bleeding. METHODS: The checklist was implemented by presenting it in several staff meetings of the Catharina Heart Center. Copies of the checklist were presented in every operating room. Data were collected by the Catharina Heart Center, aligned with the 'Meetbaar Beter' data manual and validated by 'Meetbaar Beter' through their data quality system. The incidence of re-exploration for bleeding was analysed in a variable life-adjusted display curve. The patient population operated after the implementation of the checklist was compared with a recent historical population before its implementation. RESULTS: From January 2013 through April 2016, 4817 cardiac surgical procedures were performed in our institution. Before May 2015, 3210 procedures were performed (Group 1), complicated by 112 re-exploration for bleeding (3.5%). The 'reoperation for bleeding checklist' was implemented on 1 May 2015. After this date, the number of re-explorations for bleeding decreased to 29 (1.8%) of the 1607 cardiac surgical procedures (Group 2) (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: An intraoperative checklist is feasible to implement, low cost, quick and simple to measure with a significant reduction in the incidence of re-exploration for bleeding. This report shows an example of the positive effects of transparency in publishing outcomes' data in cardiac surgery.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available