Key result
An integrative review of 10 studies revealed a lack of documentation regarding the patient, case, individual, and environmental factors that impede perioperative nurses during surgical counts.
Why the study?
Unintentional retained items continue to occur during surgery, exposing non-adherence to the surgical count process as a potential factor, but perioperative nurses' practices and barriers to following best practice guidelines are not well documented.
Systematic Review (n=10)
This review highlights a gap in the literature regarding the specific factors that impede perioperative nurses from adhering to best practices during surgical counts.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Highlights documentation gaps in surgical counts; leaves open identification of modifiable barriers for targeted safety research.
Problem identification: The surgical count is an integral component of the perioperative nurse’s role designed to reduce the risk of unintentional retained items (URIs) during surgery. Current literature provides statistical data that URIs continue to occur which has exposed a lack of adherence to the surgical count process as a possible contributing factor. This review was undertaken to identify what is currently known about perioperative nurses’ practices in relation to the surgical count and the perceived barriers and enablers when trying to follow best practice as outlined in ACORN’s Standards for Perioperative Nursing in Australia. Literature search: The objective of the search was to identify empirical data relating to nurses’ knowledge and practices in relation to the surgical count. We identified 215 research papers in the literature search using search terms consisting of instrument counts, culture and patient safety. Data evaluation synthesis: Studies from 2003 to 2018 were categorised methodologically as qualitative, quantitative and mixed methodologies. All papers were reviewed by the authors separately to extract key information around design, sample size, aim, key findings and limitations. Studies were critically appraised using the mixed method appraisal tool (MMAT) for mixed method studies and the QualSyst tool for quantitative and qualitative studies. The literature search identified a total of 215 studies, 109 of which were identified for further review using the ‘preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis’ (PRISMA) flow chart. Six exclusion criteria were applied to exclude a further 52 articles from the final review, which resulted in ten articles being included in the final sample. Implications for practice or research: The review demonstrates that statistical data around URIs is widely reported. However, little is documented about the patient, case, individual and environmental factors that may impede perioperative nurses in following best practice when undertaking a surgical count.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gillespie et al. (2019) conducted a systematic review in Unintentional retained items during surgery (n=10). Surgical count process was evaluated on Perioperative nurses' practices, barriers, and enablers in relation to the surgical count. An integrative review of 10 studies revealed a lack of documentation regarding the patient, case, individual, and environmental factors that impede perioperative nurses during surgical counts.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: