↓ Skip to main content

Compliance with Surgical Safety Checklist completion in the operating room of University of Gondar Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
199 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.
Title
Compliance with Surgical Safety Checklist completion in the operating room of University of Gondar Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia
Published in
BMC Research Notes, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13104-015-1338-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tadesse B. Melekie, Gashaw M. Getahun

Abstract

Appropriate utilization and compliance of Surgical Safety Checklist reduces occurrence of perioperative surgical complications and improve patient outcomes. However, data on compliance of surgical checklists are scarce in the study area. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate compliance of checklist completion and its barrier for utilization at University of Gondar Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia. A prospective observational study was conducted among 282 patients undergoing elective and emergency surgery from January to March 2013. Compliance and completeness rate with implementation of Sign-in, Time-out, and Sign-out domains was computed with SPSS 20 package. A total of 282 operations were performed and checklists were utilized in 39.7 % (112/282) of cases. Among these, most checklists were employed during emergency procedures (61.6 %) that need general anesthesia (75.9 %) in department of surgery (58.9 %). The overall compliance and completeness rate were 39.7 and 63.4 % respectively. The sign-in, time-out and sign-out were missed in 30.5 % (273/896), 35.4 % (436/1,232) and 45.7 % (307/672) respectively. The main reasons cited for non-user were lack of previous training (45.1 %) and lack of cooperation among surgical team members (21.6 %). The completeness rate was satisfactory but the overall compliance rate was suboptimal. An instrument that is used 40 % of the time has been a fairly basic introduction without significant reinforcement training. Moreover, frequent use of the checklist during emergency cases has been deemed to be of value by clinicians. Supplementary training and attention to actual checklist use would be indicated to ensure that this valuable tool could be used more routinely and improve communication. Conducting regular audit of checklist utilization is also recommended.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 199 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 198 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 17%
Student > Bachelor 17 9%
Researcher 13 7%
Student > Postgraduate 11 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 5%
Other 32 16%
Unknown 82 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 2%
Other 13 7%
Unknown 90 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 20 December 2017.
All research outputs
#7,924,989
of 24,742,536 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#1,247
of 4,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,030
of 271,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#34
of 142 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,742,536 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,452 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
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 271,616 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 142 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.