Addressing knowledge gaps in Surgical Safety Checklist use: statistical process control analysis of a surgical quality improvement programme in Ethiopia

BACKGROUND

The WHO Surgical Safety Checklist reduces morbidity and mortality after surgery, but uptake remains challenging. In particular, low-income countries have been found to have lower rates of checklist use compared with high-income countries. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of educational workshops on Surgical Safety Checklist use implemented as part of a quality improvement initiative in five hospitals in Ethiopia that had variable experience with the Surgical Safety Checklist.

METHODS

From April 2019 to September 2020, each hospital implemented a 6-month surgical quality improvement programme, which included a Surgical Safety Checklist workshop. Statistical process control methodology was used to understand the variation in Surgical Safety Checklist compliance before and after workshops and a time-series analysis was performed using population-averaged generalized estimating equation Poisson regression. Checklist compliance was defined as correctly completing a sign in, timeout, and sign out. Incidence rate ratios of correct checklist use pre- and post-intervention were calculated and the change in mean weekly compliance was predicted.

RESULTS

Checklist compliance data were obtained from 2767 operations (1940 (70 per cent) pre-intervention and 827 (30 per cent) post-intervention). Mean weekly checklist compliance improved from 27.3 to 41.2 per cent (mean difference 13.9 per cent, P = 0.001; incidence rate ratio 1.51, P = 0.001). Hospitals with higher checklist compliance at baseline had the greatest overall improvements in compliance, more than 50 per cent over pre-intervention, while low-performing hospitals showed no improvement.

CONCLUSION

Surgical Safety Checklist workshops improved checklist compliance in hospitals with some experience with its use. Workshops had little effect in hospitals unfamiliar with the Surgical Safety Checklist, emphasizing the importance of multifactorial interventions and culture-change approaches. In receptive facilities, short workshops can accelerate behaviour change.

Global Survey of Perceptions of the Surgical Safety Checklist Among Medical Students, Trainees, and Early Career Providers

BACKGROUND

The Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) has been shown to reduce perioperative complications across global health systems. We sought to assess perceptions of the SSC and suggestions for its improvement among medical students, trainees, and early career providers.

METHODS

From July to September 2019, a survey assessing perceptions of the SSC was disseminated through InciSioN, the International Student Surgical Network comprising medical students, trainees, and early career providers pursuing surgery. Individuals with ≥2 years of independent practice after training were excluded. Respondents were categorized according to any clinical versus solely non-clinical SSC exposure. Logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between clinical/non-clinical exposure and promoting future use of the SSC, adjusting for potential confounders/mediators: training level, human development index, and first perceptions of the SSC. Thematic analysis was conducted on suggestions for SSC improvement.

RESULTS

Respondent participation rate was 24%. Three hundred and eighteen respondents were included in final analyses; 215 (67%) reported clinical exposure and 190 (60%) were promoters of future SSC use. Clinical exposure was associated with greater odds of promoting future SSC use (aOR 1.81 95% CI [1.03-3.19], p = 0.039). A greater proportion of promoters reported "Improved Operating Room Communication" as a goal of the SSC (0.21 95% CI [0.15-0.27]-vs.-0.12 [0.06-0.17], p = 0.031), while non-promoters reported the SSC goals were "Not Well Understood" (0.08 95% CI [0.03-0.12]-vs.-0.03 [0.01-0.05], p = 0.032). Suggestions for SSC improvement emphasized context-specific adaptability and earlier formal training.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical exposure to the SSC was associated with promoting its future use. Earlier formal clinical training may improve perceptions and future use among medical students, trainees, and early career providers.

Patient and clinician experience of a serious illness conversation guide in oncology: A descriptive analysis

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Oncology guidelines recommend earlier communication with patients about prognosis and goals-of-care in serious illness. However, current evidence leaves gaps in our understanding of the experience of these conversations. This analysis evaluates the patient and clinician experience of a conversation using a Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG).

DESIGN/SETTING

Secondary analysis from a cluster-randomized clinical trial in a northeastern cancer center.

PARTICIPANTS

Physicians, advanced practice clinicians, and patients with advanced cancer who received the intervention.

INTERVENTION

SICG, clinician training, systems-changes.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The patient questionnaire assessed perceptions of the conversation and impact on anxiety, hopefulness, peacefulness, sense of control over medical decisions, closeness with their clinician, and behaviors. The clinician questionnaire assessed feasibility, acceptability, and impact on satisfaction in their role.

RESULTS

We enrolled 54 clinicians and 163 patients; 41 clinicians and 118 patients had a SICG discussion. Most patients described the conversation as worthwhile (79%) and reported no change or improvement in their sense of peacefulness, hopefulness, and anxiety (on average 79%); 56% reported feeling closer with their clinician. Qualitative patient data described positive behavior changes, including enhanced planning for future care and increased focus on personal priorities. Nearly 90% of clinicians agreed that the SICG facilitated timely, effective conversations, and 70% reported increased satisfaction in their role.

CONCLUSION

Conversations using a SICG were feasible, acceptable, and were associated with positive experiences for both patients and clinicians in oncology in ways that align with national recommendations for serious illness communication. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01786811 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01786811.

Variation in global uptake of the Surgical Safety Checklist

Background

The Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) is a patient safety tool shown to reduce mortality and to improve teamwork and adherence with perioperative safety practices. The results of the original pilot work were published 10 years ago. This study aimed to determine the contemporary prevalence and predictors of SSC use globally.

Methods

Pooled data from the GlobalSurg and Surgical Outcomes studies were analysed to describe SSC use in 2014–2016. The primary exposure was the Human Development Index (HDI) of the reporting country, and the primary outcome was reported SSC use. A generalized estimating equation, clustering by facility, was used to determine differences in SSC use by patient, facility and national characteristics.

Results

A total of 85 957 patients from 1464 facilities in 94 countries were included. On average, facilities used the SSC in 75·4 per cent of operations. Compared with very high HDI, SSC use was less in low HDI countries (odds ratio (OR) 0·08, 95 per cent c.i. 0·05 to 0·12). The SSC was used less in urgent compared with elective operations in low HDI countries (OR 0·68, 0·53 to 0·86), but used equally for urgent and elective operations in very high HDI countries (OR 0·96, 0·87 to 1·06). SSC use was lower for obstetrics and gynaecology versus abdominal surgery (OR 0·91, 0·85 to 0·98) and where the common or official language was not one of the WHO official languages (OR 0·30, 0·23 to 0·39).

Conclusion

Worldwide, SSC use is generally high, but significant variability exists. Implementation and dissemination strategies must be developed to address this variability.

Effect of the Serious Illness Care Program on Health Care Utilization at the End of Life for Patients with Cancer

Objectives: To determine the effect of the Serious Illness Care Program on health care utilization at the end of life in oncology. Design: Analysis of the secondary outcome of health care utilization as part of a cluster-randomized clinical trial that ran from 2012 to 2016. Clinicians in the intervention group received training, coaching, and system supports to have discussions with patients using a Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG); clinicians in the control arm followed usual care. Setting/Subject: Patients with advanced cancer who died within two years of enrollment at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. Measurement: Health care utilization was abstracted from the electronic medical record using the National Quality Forum (NQF)-endorsed indicators of aggressive cancer care at the end of life and scored from 0 to 6 (one point for each aggressive indicator); t tests and chi-square tests were used to determine differences between intervention and control patients. Results: The charts of 159 patients who died were reviewed. Neither the main outcome of mean number of aggressive indicators (0.9 vs. 0.9, p = 0.84) nor the proportion of patients with any aggressive care (49% intervention [95% CI: 40-57] vs. 54% control [95% CI: 42-67]) differed between patients in the intervention and control groups. Conclusion: In this analysis of a secondary outcome from a randomized clinical trial of the Serious Illness Care Program, intervention and control patients had similar end-of-life health care utilization as measured by the mean number of NQF-endorsed indicators. Future research efforts should focus on studying the strategies by which communication about patients' prognosis, values, and goals leads to personalized care plans.

Development of a Surgical Infection Surveillance Program at a Tertiary Hospital in Ethiopia: Lessons Learned from Two Surveillance Strategies

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are a leading cause of post-operative morbidity and mortality. We developed Clean Cut, a surgical infection prevention program, with two goals: (1) Increase adherence to evidence-based peri-operative infection prevention standards and (2) establish sustainable surgical infection surveillance. Here we describe our infection surveillance strategy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Clean Cut was piloted and evaluated at a 523 bed tertiary hospital in Ethiopia. Infection prevention standards included: (1) Hand and surgical site decontamination; (2) integrity of gowns, drapes, and gloves; (3) instrument sterility; (4) prophylactic antibiotic administration; (5) surgical gauze tracking; and (6) checklist compliance. Primary outcome measure was SSI, with secondary outcomes including other infection, re-operation, and length of stay. We prospectively observed all post-surgical wounds in obstetrics over a 12 day period and separately recorded post-operative complications using chart review. Simultaneously, we reviewed the written hospital charts after patient discharge for all patients whose peri-operative adherence to infection prevention standards was captured.

RESULTS

Fifty obstetric patients were followed prospectively with recorded rates of SSI 14%, re-operation 6%, and death 2%. Compared with direct observation, chart review alone had a high loss to follow-up (28%) and decreased capture of infectious complications (SSI [n = 2], endometritis [n = 3], re-operations [n = 2], death [n = 1]); further, documentation inconsistencies failed to capture two complications (SSI [n = 1], mastitis [n = 1]). Concurrently, 137 patients were observed for peri-operative infection prevention standard adherence. Of these, we were able to successfully review 95 (69%) patient charts with recorded rates of SSI 5%, re-operation 1%, and death 1%.

CONCLUSION

Patient loss to follow-up and poor documentation of infections underestimated overall infectious complications. Direct, prospective follow-up is possible but requires increased time, clinical skill, and training. For accurate surgical infection surveillance, direct follow-up of patients during hospitalization is essential, because chart review does not accurately reflect post-operative complications.