Impact of the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist Relative to Its Design and Intended Use: A Systematic Review and Meta-Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to identify what parts of the World Health Organization Surgical Safety Checklist (WHO SSC) are working, what can be done to make it more effective, and to determine if it achieved its intended effect relative to its design and intended use. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a qualitative thematic analysis and meta-meta-analyses of findings in WHO SSC systematic reviews following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. RESULTS: Twenty systematic reviews were included for qualitative thematic analysis. Narrative information was coded in 4 primary areas with a focus on impact of the WHO SSC. Four themes-Clinical Outcomes, Process Measures, Team Dynamics and Communication, and Safety Culture-pertained directly to the aims or purposes behind the development of the SSC. The other 2 themes-Efficiency and Workload involved in using the checklist and Checklist Impact on Institutional Practices-are associated with SSC use, but were not focal areas considered during its development. Included in the 20 systematic reviews were 24 unique observational cohort studies that reported pre-post data on a total of 18 clinical outcomes. Mortality, morbidity, surgical site infection, pneumonia, unplanned return to the operating room, urinary tract infection, blood loss requiring transfusion, unplanned intubation, and sepsis favored the use of the WHO SSC. Deep vein thrombosis was the only postoperative outcome assessed that did not favor use of the WHO SSC. CONCLUSIONS: The WHO SSC positively impacts the things it was explicitly designed to address and does not positively impact things it was not explicitly designed for.

Single-center task analysis and user-centered assessment of physical space impacts on emergency Cesarean delivery.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to begin to address this gap using validated techniques in human factors to perform a participatory user-centered analysis of physical space during emergency Cesarean. METHODS: This study employed a mixed-methods design. Focus group interviews and surveys were administered to a convenience sample (n = 34) of multidisciplinary obstetric teams. Data collected from focus group interviews were used to perform a task and equipment analysis. Survey data were coded and mapped by specialty to identify reported areas of congestion and time spent, and to identify themes related to physical space of the OR and labor and delivery unit. RESULTS: Task analysis revealed complex interdependencies between specialties. Thirty task groupings requiring over 20 pieces of equipment were identified. Perceived areas of congestion and areas of time spent in the OR varied by clinical specialty. The following categories emerged as main challenges encountered during an emergency Cesarean: 1) size of physical space and equipment, 2) layout and orientation, and 3) patient transport. CONCLUSION: User insights on physical space and workflow processes during emergency Cesarean section at the institution studied revealed challenges related to getting the patients into the OR expediently and having space to perform tasks without crowding or staff injury. By utilizing human factors techniques, other institutions may build upon our findings to improve safety during emergency situations on labor and delivery.