4.6 Article

Requirements for the design and implementation of checklists for surgical processes

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-008-0044-4

关键词

Endoscopy; Human error; Safety checklist; Instruments; Technical; Human/robotic

类别

资金

  1. health insurance company DSW (Schiedam, The Netherlands)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of checklists is a promising strategy for improving patient safety in all types of surgical processes inside and outside the operating room. This article aims to provide requirements and implementation of checklists for surgical processes. The literature on checklist use in the operating room was reviewed based on research using Medline, Pubmed, and Google Scholar. Although all the studies showed positive effects and important benefits such as improved team cohesion, improved awareness of safety issues, and reduction of errors, their number still is limited. The motivation of team members is considered essential for compliance. Currently, no general guidelines exist for checklist design in the surgical field. Based on the authors' experiences and on guidelines used in the aviation industry, requirements for the checklist design are proposed. The design depends on the checklist purpose, philosophy, and method chosen. The methods consist of the call-do-response approach, the do-verify approach, or a combination of both. The advantages and disadvantages of paper versus electronic solutions are discussed. Furthermore, a step-by-step strategy of how to implement a checklist in the clinical situation is suggested. The use of structured checklists in surgical processes is most likely to be effective because it standardizes human performance and ensures that procedures are followed correctly instead of relying on human memory alone. Several studies present promising and positive first results, providing a solid basis for further investigation. Future research should focus on the effect of various checklist designs and strategies to ensure maximal compliance.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据