A quality improvement initiative using peer audit and feedback to improve compliance.

checklist compliance feedback observation patient safety surgery

Journal

International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care
ISSN: 1464-3677
Titre abrégé: Int J Qual Health Care
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9434628

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
15 Jul 2022
Historique:
received: 21 01 2022
revised: 11 05 2022
accepted: 29 06 2022
pubmed: 1 7 2022
medline: 22 7 2022
entrez: 30 6 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) published by the WHO in 2009 is used as standard in surgery worldwide to reduce perioperative patient mortality. However, compliance with the SSC and quality of its application are often not satisfactory. Internal audits and feedbacks seem promising for improving SSC application. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether an intervention consisting of peer observation and immediate peer feedback can be implemented with high fidelity and acceptance. Data were obtained from a national pilot programme that was initiated in Switzerland in 2018 to measure and improve compliance with the SSC using peer audit and feedback. A total of 11 hospitals with 14 sites implemented the full intervention. Each hospital formed an interprofessional project team that should perform at least 30 observations with feedback on SSC application documented in an observation tool developed specifically for this programme. Since the SSCs of the study hospitals differ greatly regarding checklist items, for each of the three SSC sections standard items were defined: four at Sign In, five at Team Time Out and two at Sign Out. Frequency analyses were performed for initiation characteristics, SSC application at item level, feedback characteristics and programme evaluation. The 11 hospitals documented 715 valid observations, and feedback on SSC application was provided for 79% of the observations. In 61%, all team members stopped their work for the SSC application, and in 71%, the items were read off from the checklist (instead of recalled from memory). On average, 86% of the standard items were read out by the checklist coordinator, whilst the two items at Sign Out were read out only in 60% and 74%. Additional visual checks with another source (e.g. patient wristband) took place in only 41%, and verbal confirmation of the items (by someone else other than the checklist coordinator) was obtained on an average of 76% across all three checklist sections. The surgical teams reacted positively in 64% to the peer feedback. Both implementation fidelity and acceptability of the intervention were high-the present intervention seems suitable for regular monitoring of the quality of SSC application with internal resources. Peer observation facilitated identifying weaknesses regarding the SSC process and application at item level. Across all hospitals, the Sign Out section in general, visual control for item checks and lack of work interruption of all team members during SSC application showed up as the main areas of improvement.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) published by the WHO in 2009 is used as standard in surgery worldwide to reduce perioperative patient mortality. However, compliance with the SSC and quality of its application are often not satisfactory. Internal audits and feedbacks seem promising for improving SSC application.
OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study is to investigate whether an intervention consisting of peer observation and immediate peer feedback can be implemented with high fidelity and acceptance.
METHOD METHODS
Data were obtained from a national pilot programme that was initiated in Switzerland in 2018 to measure and improve compliance with the SSC using peer audit and feedback. A total of 11 hospitals with 14 sites implemented the full intervention. Each hospital formed an interprofessional project team that should perform at least 30 observations with feedback on SSC application documented in an observation tool developed specifically for this programme. Since the SSCs of the study hospitals differ greatly regarding checklist items, for each of the three SSC sections standard items were defined: four at Sign In, five at Team Time Out and two at Sign Out. Frequency analyses were performed for initiation characteristics, SSC application at item level, feedback characteristics and programme evaluation.
RESULTS RESULTS
The 11 hospitals documented 715 valid observations, and feedback on SSC application was provided for 79% of the observations. In 61%, all team members stopped their work for the SSC application, and in 71%, the items were read off from the checklist (instead of recalled from memory). On average, 86% of the standard items were read out by the checklist coordinator, whilst the two items at Sign Out were read out only in 60% and 74%. Additional visual checks with another source (e.g. patient wristband) took place in only 41%, and verbal confirmation of the items (by someone else other than the checklist coordinator) was obtained on an average of 76% across all three checklist sections. The surgical teams reacted positively in 64% to the peer feedback.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
Both implementation fidelity and acceptability of the intervention were high-the present intervention seems suitable for regular monitoring of the quality of SSC application with internal resources. Peer observation facilitated identifying weaknesses regarding the SSC process and application at item level. Across all hospitals, the Sign Out section in general, visual control for item checks and lack of work interruption of all team members during SSC application showed up as the main areas of improvement.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35770658
pii: 6622008
doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzac058
pmc: PMC9290878
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Subventions

Organisme : Hanela Stiftung
Organisme : Foederatio Medicorum Chirurgicorum Helvetica
Organisme : Swiss Federal Office of Public Health
ID : 500.005-7_2

Informations de copyright

© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Quality in Health Care.

Références

Br J Surg. 2014 Feb;101(3):150-8
pubmed: 24469615
N Engl J Med. 2009 Jan 29;360(5):491-9
pubmed: 19144931
J Am Coll Surg. 2015 Jan;220(1):1-11.e4
pubmed: 25456785
BMJ Qual Saf. 2013 Aug;22(8):639-46
pubmed: 23476070
Br J Surg. 2020 Jan;107(2):e151-e160
pubmed: 31903586
J Patient Saf. 2021 Apr 1;17(3):217-222
pubmed: 33323892
BMJ Qual Saf. 2016 Oct;25(10):778-86
pubmed: 26590200
BMJ Open. 2013 Oct 21;3(10):e003525
pubmed: 24148213
Br J Anaesth. 2018 Jan;120(1):146-155
pubmed: 29397122
Implement Sci. 2019 Apr 26;14(1):40
pubmed: 31027495
J Surg Res. 2021 Jan;257:425-432
pubmed: 32892141
ANZ J Surg. 2017 Dec;87(12):971-975
pubmed: 27225068
PLoS One. 2016 Feb 29;11(2):e0149212
pubmed: 26925579
Qual Saf Health Care. 2008 Dec;17(6):454-8
pubmed: 19064662
Ann Surg. 2012 Jan;255(1):44-9
pubmed: 22123159
Ann Surg. 2012 Dec;256(6):925-33
pubmed: 22968074
Br J Surg. 2021 Dec 17;109(1):136-144
pubmed: 34850862
J Surg Educ. 2018 Jan - Feb;75(1):58-64
pubmed: 28780315
Ann Surg. 2016 Jan;263(1):58-63
pubmed: 25775063
Patient Saf Surg. 2019 Mar 12;13:14
pubmed: 30918531
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011 Mar;38(2):65-76
pubmed: 20957426

Auteurs

Annemarie Fridrich (A)

Swiss Patient Safety Foundation, Asystrassse 77, Zurich 8032, Switzerland.

Anita Imhof (A)

Swiss Patient Safety Foundation, Asystrassse 77, Zurich 8032, Switzerland.

Sven Staender (S)

Department of Anaesthesia & Intensive Care Medicine, Regional Hospital Maennedorf, Asylstrasse 10, Maennedorf 8708, Switzerland.

Mirko Brenni (M)

Institute of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine, Emergency and Rescue Medicine, See-Spital, Asylstrasse 19, Horgen 8810, Switzerland.

David Schwappach (D)

Swiss Patient Safety Foundation, Asystrassse 77, Zurich 8032, Switzerland.
Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Mittelstrasse 43, Bern 3012, Switzerland.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH