↓ Skip to main content

Interval follow up of a 4-day pilot program to implement the WHO surgical safety checklist at a Congolese hospital

Overview of attention for article published in Globalization and Health, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

10 tweeters


21 Dimensions

Readers on

90 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Interval follow up of a 4-day pilot program to implement the WHO surgical safety checklist at a Congolese hospital
Published in
Globalization and Health, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12992-017-0266-0
Pubmed ID

Michelle C. White, Jennifer Peterschmidt, James Callahan, J. Edward Fitzgerald, Kristin L. Close


The World Health Organisation Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) improves surgical outcomes and the research question is no longer 'does the SSC work?' but, 'how to make the SSC work?' Evidence for implementation strategies in low-income countries is sparse and existing strategies are heavily based on long-term external support. Short but effective implementation programs are required if widespread scale up is to be achieved. We designed and delivered a four-day pilot SSC training course at a single hospital centre in the Republic of Congo, and evaluated the implementation after one year. We hypothesised that participants would still be using the checklist over 50% of the time. We taught the four-day SSC training course at Dolisie hospital in February 2014, and undertook a mixed methods impact evaluation based on the Kirkpatrick model in May 2015. SSC implementation was evaluated using self-reported questionnaire with a 3 point Likert scale to assess six key process measures. Learning, behaviour, organisational change and facilitators and inhibitors to change were evaluated with questionnaires, interviews and focus group discussion. Seventeen individuals participated in the training and seven (40%) were available for impact evaluation at 15 months. No participant had used the SSC prior to training. Over half the participants were following the six processes measures always or most of the time: confirmation of patient identity and the surgical procedure (57%), assessment of difficult intubation risk (72%), assessment of the risk of major blood loss (86%), antibiotic prophylaxis given before skin incision (86%), use of a pulse oximeter (86%), and counting sponges and instruments (71%). All participants reported positive improvements in teamwork, organisation and safe anesthesia. Most participants reported they worked in helpful, supportive and respectful atmosphere; and could speak up if they saw something that might harm a patient. However, less than half felt able to challenge those in authority. Our study demonstrates that a 4-day pilot course for SSC implementation resulted in over 50% of participants using the SSC at 15 months, positive changes in learning, behaviour and organisational change, but less impact on hierarchical culture. The next step is to test our novel implementation strategy in a larger hospital setting.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 90 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 16 18%
Student > Master 11 12%
Other 9 10%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Researcher 6 7%
Other 17 19%
Unknown 24 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 12%
Social Sciences 6 7%
Psychology 6 7%
Computer Science 3 3%
Other 19 21%
Unknown 25 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 May 2018.
All research outputs
of 12,980,672 outputs
Outputs from Globalization and Health
of 672 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 263,219 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Globalization and Health
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,980,672 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 672 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.4. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,219 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them