Why the study?
Does a WHO-derived safe procedure checklist reduce procedural complications in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory?
Does a WHO-derived safe procedure checklist reduce procedural complications in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory?
The use of a safe procedure checklist and team brief in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory is associated with fewer procedural complications and improved staff experience.
May support checklist use in CCLs with caution; leaves open need for randomized confirmation of benefits.
BACKGROUND: The use of the WHO safe surgery checklist has been shown to reduce morbidity and mortality from surgical procedures. However, whether a WHO-style safe procedure checklist can improve safety in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory (CCL) has not previously been investigated. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to design and implement a safe procedure checklist suitable for all CCL procedures, and to assess its impact over the course of 1 year. METHODS: In the first 3 months, weekly PDSA cycles (Plan-Do-Study-Act) were used to optimise the design of the checklist through testing and staff feedback, and team briefing sessions were introduced before each procedure list. The impact of the checklist and team briefs was assessed by analysing in-house procedural data subsequently submitted to national audit databases. Staff and patient questionnaires were performed throughout the year. RESULTS: ; 95% CI 255.9 to 1027.1, p=0.002). The rate of reported complications from all procedures fell significantly from 2.0% in 2012/2013 (95% CI 1.6% to 2.4%) to 0.8% in 2013/2014 (95% CI 0.6% to 1.1%, p≤0.001). Staff climate questionnaires showed that technicians and radiographers gave more positive responses at the end of the study period compared with the beginning (p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a team brief and WHO-derived safe procedure checklist in the CCL was associated with decreased radiation exposure, fewer procedural complications, faster turnarounds and improved staff experience.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lindsay et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: