Effect of a comprehensive surgical safety system on patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND Adverse events in patients who have undergone surgery constitute a large proportion of iatrogenic illnesses. Most surgical safety interventions have focused on the operating room. Since more than half of all surgical errors occur outside the operating room, it is likely that a more substantial improvement in outcomes can be achieved by targeting the entire surgical pathway. METHODS We examined the effects on patient outcomes of a comprehensive, multidisciplinary surgical safety checklist, including items such as medication, marking of the operative side, and use of postoperative instructions. The checklist was implemented in six hospitals with high standards of care. All complications occurring during admission were documented prospectively. We compared the rate of complications during a baseline period of 3 months with the rate during a 3-month period after implementation of the checklist, while accounting for potential confounders. Similar data were collected from a control group of five hospitals. RESULTS In a comparison of 3760 patients observed before implementation of the checklist with 3820 patients observed after implementation, the total number of complications per 100 patients decreased from 27.3 (95% confidence interval [CI], 25.9 to 28.7) to 16.7 (95% CI, 15.6 to 17.9), for an absolute risk reduction of 10.6 (95% CI, 8.7 to 12.4). The proportion of patients with one or more complications decreased from 15.4% to 10.6% (P<0.001). In-hospital mortality decreased from 1.5% (95% CI, 1.2 to 2.0) to 0.8% (95% CI, 0.6 to 1.1), for an absolute risk reduction of 0.7 percentage points (95% CI, 0.2 to 1.2). Outcomes did not change in the control hospitals. CONCLUSIONS Implementation of this comprehensive checklist was associated with a reduction in surgical complications and mortality in hospitals with a high standard of care. (Netherlands Trial Register number, NTR1943.).

[1]  A. Barkun,et al.  Measuring postoperative complications in general surgery patients using an outcomes-based strategy: comparison with complications presented at morbidity and mortality rounds. , 1997, Surgery.

[2]  R. Bender,et al.  Calculating confidence intervals for the number needed to treat. , 2001, Controlled clinical trials.

[3]  Ethan A Halm,et al.  Is Volume Related to Outcome in Health Care? A Systematic Review and Methodologic Critique of the Literature , 2002, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[4]  [Automated registration of adverse events in surgical patients in the Netherlands: the current status]. , 2003, Nederlands tijdschrift voor geneeskunde.

[5]  J. Kievit,et al.  Effectiveness of routine reporting to identify minor and serious adverse outcomes in surgical patients , 2005, Quality and Safety in Health Care.

[6]  J. Kievit,et al.  Adverse outcomes in surgical patients: implementation of a nationwide reporting system , 2006, Quality and Safety in Health Care.

[7]  M. Makary,et al.  Operating room briefings: working on the same page. , 2006, Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety.

[8]  W. Abbott,et al.  Identification of surgical complications and deaths: an assessment of the traditional surgical morbidity and mortality conference compared with the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. , 2006, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[9]  F Dean Griffen,et al.  The American College of Surgeons' closed claims study: new insights for improving care. , 2007, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[10]  Janet Johnston,et al.  Getting Surgery Right , 2007, Annals of surgery.

[11]  Stuart R. Lipsitz,et al.  Patterns of Communication Breakdowns Resulting in Injury to Surgical Patients , 2007 .

[12]  J. Kievit,et al.  Adverse outcomes after discharge: occurrence, treatment and determinants , 2008, Quality & Safety in Health Care.

[13]  E. D. de Vries,et al.  The incidence and nature of in-hospital adverse events: a systematic review , 2008, Quality & Safety in Health Care.

[14]  Jon D. Elhai,et al.  Statistical procedures for analyzing mental health services data , 2008, Psychiatry Research.

[15]  R J Lilford,et al.  An epistemology of patient safety research: a framework for study design and interpretation. Part 2. Study design , 2008, Quality & Safety in Health Care.

[16]  R. Aggarwal,et al.  Systematic review of randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness of virtual reality training for laparoscopic surgery , 2008, The British journal of surgery.

[17]  R. Reznick,et al.  Evaluation of a preoperative checklist and team briefing among surgeons, nurses, and anesthesiologists to reduce failures in communication. , 2008, Archives of surgery.

[18]  J. Paige,et al.  Implementation of a Preoperative Briefing Protocol Improves Accuracy of Teamwork Assessment in the Operating Room , 2008, The American surgeon.

[19]  E. Verdaasdonk,et al.  Requirements for the design and implementation of checklists for surgical processes , 2009, Surgical Endoscopy.

[20]  Susanne M. Smorenburg,et al.  PAtient Safety System (SURPASS) checklist Development and validation of the SURgical , 2009 .

[21]  Peter J Pronovost,et al.  Reality check for checklists , 2009, The Lancet.

[22]  P. McCulloch,et al.  The effects of aviation-style non-technical skills training on technical performance and outcome in the operating theatre , 2009, Quality & Safety in Health Care.

[23]  W. Berry,et al.  A Surgical Safety Checklist to Reduce Morbidity and Mortality in a Global Population , 2009, The New England journal of medicine.

[24]  W. Hawkins,et al.  The Accordion Severity Grading System of Surgical Complications , 2009, Annals of surgery.