Key result
Quality improvement initiatives boost surgical safety checklist compliance to 98% with adverse events below 1%.
Why the study?
Assessment of anaesthesia and surgical services quality at a tertiary healthcare center in India was needed to identify gaps and suggest improvements based on NABH standards.
Observational (n=5,029)
No
Absolute Event Rate: 98% vs 85%
Implementation of NABH quality indicators in a tertiary center demonstrated low rates of adverse anaesthesia events and improved compliance with surgical safety checklists.
May support NABH indicators in tertiary centers with low adverse events; leaves open causal impact and generalizability.
Introduction: Quality and safety indicators are used to measure and monitor the quality of the services provided to the patients.It encourages an environment of continuous and sustained quality.Clinical indicators in Anaesthesia were first drafted by the United States Joint Commission on Hospital accreditation in 1992.They were included as a part of accreditation process for hospitals in Australian council in Health care standards in 1993.In India in 2006, NABH was established with the objective of enhancing health system and promoting continous quality improvement and patient safety.It has full functional autonomy in its operation.NABH is a member of ISQua accreditation council.The approval of ISQua authenticates that NABH standards are in consonance with the global benchmarks.Aim: The present study aims to have an assessment of anaesthesia and surgical services at a tertiary level Healthcare standard as given by National Accreditation Board for Hospitals and Health Care.Objectives 1.To analyse the performance of CQI of Anaesthesia and surgical services in the years 2013 and 2014, in line NABH.2. To identify gaps and suggest improvements in Anaesthesia and surgical services.Methodology: It is a retrospective study of key quality indicators, (CQI-NABH) with respect to anaesthesia and surgical services at Indian Spinal Injuries Centre.It is as per COP 13 and COP 14 and CQI.3 standards of NABH 3rd edition 2011.The data for the study was taken from patient records like anaesthesia notes, surgical notes and WHO surgical check safety check list for each patient in the medical record department and from anaesthesia, surgical register in the operation theatre and OT scheduling register available with the OT manager.Statistical Analysis: Data was analysed using average percentage method and MS excel to draw the conclusions.Results: The percentage modification of Anaesthesia plan, unplanned ventilation following anaesthesia, adverse anaesthesia events was less than 1% in both the years and there was no anaesthesia related mortality.Compliance with the WHO surgical safety checklist improved to 98% from 85%.No case of wrong surgery, www.jmscr.igmpublication.orgImpact Factor 5.84
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A 2017 study conducted an observational in Patients undergoing surgery under general or regional anaesthesia (n=5,029). Year 2014 (NABH standards implementation) vs. Year 2013 was evaluated on Compliance with WHO surgical safety checklist. Compliance with the WHO surgical safety checklist improved from 85% in 2013 to 98% in 2014, with anesthesia-related adverse events remaining below 1%.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: