↓ Skip to main content

How does the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist fit with existing perioperative risk management strategies? An ethnographic study across surgical specialties

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, February 2020
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
138 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
How does the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist fit with existing perioperative risk management strategies? An ethnographic study across surgical specialties
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, February 2020
DOI 10.1186/s12913-020-4965-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hilde Valen Wæhle, Arvid Steinar Haugen, Siri Wiig, Eirik Søfteland, Nick Sevdalis, Stig Harthug

Abstract

The World Health Organization (WHO) Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) has demonstrated beneficial impacts on a range of patient- and team outcomes, though variation in SSC implementation and staff's perception of it remain challenging. Precisely how frontline personnel integrate the SSC with pre-existing perioperative clinical risk management remains underexplored - yet likely an impactful factor on how SSC is being used and its potential to improve clinical safety. This study aimed to explore how members of the multidisciplinary perioperative team integrate the SSC within their risk management strategies. An ethnographic case study including observations (40 h) in operating theatres and in-depth interviews of 17 perioperative team members was carried out at two hospitals in 2016. Data were analysed using content analysis. We identified three themes reflecting the integration of the SSC in daily surgical practice: 1) Perceived usefullness; implying an intuitive advantage assessment of the SSC's practical utility in relation to relevant work; 2) Modification of implementation; reflecting performance variability of SSC on confirmation of items due to precence of team members; barriers of performance; and definition of SSC as performance indicator, and 3) Communication outside of the checklist; including formal- and informal micro-team formations where detailed, specific risk communication unfolded. When the SSC is not integrated within existing risk management strategies, but perceived as an "add on", its fidelity is compromised, hence limiting its potential clinical effectiveness. Implementation strategies for the SSC should thus integrate it as a risk-management tool and include it as part of risk-management education and training. This can improve team learning around risk comunication, foster mutual understanding of safety perspectives and enhance SSC implementation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 138 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 17%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 8%
Other 6 4%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 4%
Other 23 17%
Unknown 55 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 31 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 11%
Unspecified 6 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 21 15%
Unknown 57 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 14 February 2020.
All research outputs
#3,195,855
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,431
of 7,846 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,621
of 459,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#43
of 177 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,846 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 459,040 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 177 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.