Adapting the World Health Organization's Surgical Safety Checklist to High-Income Settings: A Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation Trial Protocol.

Objectives: The proposed study aims to assess users' perceptions of a surgical safety checklist (SSC) reimplementation toolkit and its impact on SSC attitudes and operating room (OR) culture, meaningful checklist use, measures of surgical safety, and OR efficiency at 3 different hospital sites. Background: The High-Performance Checklist toolkit (toolkit) assists surgical teams in modifying and implementing or reimplementing the World Health Organization's SSC. Through the explore, prepare, implement, and sustain implementation framework, the toolkit provides a process and set of tools to facilitate surgical teams' modification, implementation, training on, and evaluation of the SSC. Methods: A pre-post intervention design will be used to assess the impact of the modified SSC on surgical processes, team culture, patient experience, and safety. This mixed-methods study includes quantitative and qualitative data derived from surveys, semi-structured interviews, patient focus groups, and SSC performance observations. Additionally, patient outcome and OR efficiency data will be collected from the study sites' health surveillance systems. Data analysis: Statistical data will be analyzed using Statistical Product and Service Solutions, while qualitative data will be analyzed thematically using NVivo. Furthermore, interview data will be analyzed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance implementation frameworks. Setting: The toolkit will be introduced at 3 diverse surgical sites in Alberta, Canada: an urban hospital, university hospital, and small regional hospital. Anticipated impact: We anticipate the results of this study will optimize SSC usage at the participating surgical sites, help shape and refine the toolkit, and improve its usability and application at future sites.

Perspectives on Perioperative Team-Based Morbidity and Mortality Conferences: A Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Morbidity and mortality conferences (MMCs) are quality improvement mechanisms during which adverse events are reviewed, often by physicians within a single discipline. There is a growing desire to include nonphysicians and physicians from other disciplines in team-based morbidity and mortality conferences (TBMMs). This mixed methods study investigates perioperative perspectives on MMCs generally and TBMMs specifically. METHODS: A national survey of perioperative health care professionals, including surgeons, anesthesiologists, and nurses, was used to explore opinions about MMCs and TBMMs. Semistructured qualitative interviews and focus groups were conducted with health care professionals and leaders at a single study site. Quantitative data were compared using a Kruskal-Wallis test. Interview transcripts were inductively analyzed. Data were analyzed using a concurrent mixed methods approach, triangulating both sources of data. RESULTS: Survey respondents (N = 1,466) were generally positive about both MMCs and TBMMs, agreeing that conferences were respectful, affected practice, and were educational. Nurses, compared to surgeons and anesthesiologists, were more likely to find conferences educational (p = 0.004) and were less comfortable speaking up in conferences (p < 0.001). Attendees who had more experience with TBMMs rated conferences as having significantly higher utility in achieving educational and safety goals. Qualitative data from 14 participants identified barriers and facilitators at the micro, meso, and macro level. Barriers include negative personal interactions, unsupportive leadership, and legal and regulatory issues. Facilitators include interpersonal relationships between professionals, buy-in from leadership, and external motivators. CONCLUSION: Perceptions of TBMMs were overall positive, but significant barriers to implementation remain. Team members may be invited to the table, but more effort is needed to make the entire team feel included in the discussion and optimize the value of these conferences. Strategies for overcoming identified barriers remains an open area of research.

Transforming Team Performance Through Reimplementation of the Surgical Safety Checklist.

Importance: Patient safety interventions, like the World Health Organization Surgical Safety Checklist, require effective implementation strategies to achieve meaningful results. Institutions with underperforming checklists require evidence-based guidance for reimplementing these practices to maximize their impact on patient safety. Objective: To assess the ability of a comprehensive system of safety checklist reimplementation to change behavior, enhance safety culture, and improve outcomes for surgical patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective type 2 hybrid implementation-effectiveness study took place at 2 large academic referral centers in Singapore. All operations performed at either hospital were eligible for observation. Surveys were distributed to all operating room staff. Intervention: The study team developed a comprehensive surgical safety checklist reimplementation package based on the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment framework. Best practices from implementation science and human factors engineering were combined to redesign the checklist. The revised instrument was reimplemented in November 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Implementation outcomes included penetration and fidelity. The primary effectiveness outcome was team performance, assessed by trained observers using the Oxford Non-Technical Skills (NOTECH) system before and after reimplementation. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture was used to assess safety culture and observers tracked device-related interruptions (DRIs). Patient safety events, near-miss events, 30-day mortality, and serious complications were tracked for exploratory analyses. Results: Observers captured 252 cases (161 baseline and 91 end point). Penetration of the checklist was excellent at both time points, but there were significant improvements in all measures of fidelity after reimplementation. Mean NOTECHS scores increased from 37.1 to 42.4 points (4.3 point adjusted increase; 95% CI, 2.9-5.7; P < .001). DRIs decreased by 86.5% (95% CI, -22.1% to -97.8%; P = .03). Significant improvements were noted in 9 of 12 composite areas on culture of safety surveys. Exploratory analyses suggested reductions in patient safety events, mortality, and serious complications. Conclusions and Relevance: Comprehensive reimplementation of an established checklist intervention can meaningfully improve team behavior, safety culture, patient safety, and patient outcomes. Future efforts will expand the reach of this system by testing a structured guidebook coupled with light-touch implementation guidance in a variety of settings.

CheckPOINT: a simple tool to measure Surgical Safety Checklist implementation fidelity.

INTRODUCTION: The WHO Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) is a communication tool that improves teamwork and patient outcomes. SSC effectiveness is dependent on implementation fidelity. Administrative audits fail to capture most aspects of SSC implementation fidelity (ie, team communication and engagement). Existing research tools assess behaviours during checklist performance, but were not designed for routine quality assurance and improvement. We aimed to create a simple tool to assess SSC implementation fidelity, and to test its reliability using video simulations, and usability in clinical practice. METHODS: The Checklist Performance Observation for Improvement (CheckPOINT) tool underwent two rounds of face validity testing with surgical safety experts, clinicians and quality improvement specialists. Four categories were developed: checklist adherence, communication effectiveness, attitude and engagement. We created a 90 min training programme, and four trained raters independently scored 37 video simulations using the tool. We calculated intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) to assess inter-rater reliability (ICC>0.75 indicating excellent reliability). We then trained two observers, who tested the tool in the operating room. We interviewed the observers to determine tool usability. RESULTS: The CheckPOINT tool had excellent inter-rater reliability across SSC phases. The ICC was 0.83 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.98) for the sign-in, 0.77 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.92) for the time-out and 0.79 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.99) for the sign-out. During field testing, observers reported CheckPOINT was easy to use. In 98 operating room observations, the total median (IQR) score was 25 (23-28), checklist adherence was 7 (6-7), communication effectiveness was 6 (6-7), attitude was 6 (6-7) and engagement was 6 (5-7). CONCLUSIONS: CheckPOINT is a simple and reliable tool to assess SSC implementation fidelity and identify areas of focus for improvement efforts. Although CheckPOINT would benefit from further testing, it offers a low-resource alternative to existing research tools and captures elements of adherence and team behaviours.

Remote Assessment of Real-World Surgical Safety Checklist Performance Using the OR Black Box: A Multi-Institutional Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Large-scale evaluation of surgical safety checklist performance has been limited by the need for direct observation. The operating room (OR) Black Box is a multichannel surgical data capture platform that may allow for the holistic evaluation of checklist performance at scale. STUDY DESIGN: In this retrospective cohort study, data from 7 North American academic medical centers using the OR Black Box were collected between August 2020 and January 2022. All cases captured during this period were analyzed. Measures of checklist compliance, team engagement, and quality of checklist content review were investigated. RESULTS: Data from 7,243 surgical procedures were evaluated. A time-out was performed during most surgical procedures (98.4%, n = 7,127), whereas a debrief was performed during 62.3% (n = 4,510) of procedures. The mean percentage of OR staff who paused and participated during the time-out and debrief was 75.5% (SD 25.1%) and 54.6% (SD 36.4%), respectively. A team introduction (performed 42.6% of the time) was associated with more prompts completed (31.3% vs 18.7%, p < 0.001), a higher engagement score (0.90 vs 0.86, p < 0.001), and a higher percentage of team members who ceased other activities (80.3% vs 72%, p < 0.001) during the time-out. CONCLUSIONS: Remote assessment using OR Black Box data provides useful insight into surgical safety checklist performance. Many items included in the time-out and debrief were not routinely discussed. Completion of a team introduction was associated with improved time-out performance. There is potential to use OR Black Box metrics to improve intraoperative process measures.

Defining re-implementation.

BACKGROUND: The first attempt to implement a new tool or practice does not always lead to the desired outcome. Re-implementation, which we define as the systematic process of reintroducing an intervention in the same environment, often with some degree of modification, offers another chance at implementation with the opportunity to address failures, modify, and ultimately achieve the desired outcomes. This article proposes a definition and taxonomy for re-implementation informed by case examples in the literature. MAIN BODY: We conducted a scoping review of the literature for cases that describe re-implementation in concept or practice. We used an iterative process to identify our search terms, pilot testing synonyms or phrases related to re-implementation. We searched PubMed and CINAHL, including articles that described implementing an intervention in the same environment where it had already been implemented. We excluded articles that were policy-focused or described incremental changes as part of a rapid learning cycle, efforts to spread, or a stalled implementation. We assessed for commonalities among cases and conducted a thematic analysis on the circumstance in which re-implementation occurred. A total of 15 articles representing 11 distinct cases met our inclusion criteria. We identified three types of circumstances where re-implementation occurs: (1) failed implementation, where the intervention is appropriate, but the implementation process is ineffective, failing to result in the intended changes; (2) flawed intervention, where modifications to the intervention itself are required either because the tool or process is ineffective or requires tailoring to the needs and/or context of the setting where it is used; and (3) unsustained intervention, where the initially successful implementation of an intervention fails to be sustained. These three circumstances often co-exist; however, there are unique considerations and strategies for each type that can be applied to re-implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Re-implementation occurs in implementation practice but has not been consistently labeled or described in the literature. Defining and describing re-implementation offers a framework for implementation practitioners embarking on a re-implementation effort and a starting point for further research to bridge the gap between practice and science into this unexplored part of implementation.

Implementation of a Device Briefing Tool reduces interruptions in surgery: A nonrandomized controlled pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: Interruptions in operative flow are known to increase team stress and errors in the operating room. Device-related interruptions are an increasing area of focus for surgical safety, but common safety processes such as the Surgical Safety Checklist do not adequately address surgical devices. We assessed the impact of the Device Briefing Tool, a communication instrument for surgical teams, on device-related interruptions in a large academic referral center in Singapore. METHODS: The Device Briefing Tool was implemented in 4 general surgery departments, with 4 additional departments serving as a comparator group. Trained observers evaluated device-related interruption incidence in live operations at baseline and after implementation. Changes in device-related interruption frequency were assessed in each group using Poisson regression, with and without adjustment for surgical department and device complexity. Subgroup analyses assessed the impact of the Device Briefing Tool by device type. RESULTS: A total of 210 operations were evaluated by observers. In the Device Briefing Tool group, there were 38.6 and 27.2 device-related interruptions per 100 cases at baseline and after Device Briefing Tool implementation, respectively (difference -23%, P = .0047, adjusted difference -28%, P = .0013). Device-related interruption frequency in the comparator group remained stable across study periods. Point estimates indicated reductions in device-related interruptions for all device types, reaching statistical significance for circular staplers (-26%, P = .0049). CONCLUSION: Implementation of the Device Briefing Tool was associated with a 28% reduction in device-related interruptions. Proactive approaches to improving surgical device safety are crucial in the technology-driven landscape of modern surgical care. Future efforts will assess formal integration of the Device Briefing Tool into institution-wide surgical safety processes.

Creating a high-performance surgical safety checklist: A multimodal evaluation plan to reinvigorate the checklist.

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: The WHO Surgical Safety Checklist is a communication tool designed to improve surgical safety processes and enhance teamwork. It has been widely adopted since its introduction over ten years ago. As surgical safety needs evolve, organizations should periodically review and update their checklists. A holistic evaluation of the checklist in the context of an organization is the first step to making informed updates. In this article, we describe a comprehensive but feasible strategy for checklist evaluation which we developed and implemented as part of a surgical safety initiative in a high-performing center. METHODS: A three-part evaluation plan was developed and carried out by a multidisciplinary team. The evaluation included assessment of 1. Quality of care through a review of surgical safety events; 2. Safety culture through a validated survey and informal feedback; and 3. Checklist performance through direct observations and a staff survey. To prepare for re-implementation the current institutional checklist was critically evaluated and a context assessment survey was administered to surgical staff. RESULTS: The evaluation revealed challenges in communication and teamwork, with surgical staff often perceived to be working in silos. The quality of care assessment indicated room for improvement in safety processes. Deficiencies in the safety culture measures of communication and feedback shed light on an overall lack of engagement with the checklist. Checklist performance demonstrated good adherence to the items on the checklist but limited engagement by the surgical team and minimal communication between subteams. These findings informed our revisions to the checklist and its implementation processes. CONCLUSIONS: We developed and implemented a comprehensive, scalable approach to checklist evaluation which directly informed improvements to the checklist that were tailored to the organization's current context. Organizations can apply this framework to breathe new life into their checklist and transform their safety culture.

Utility of a Device Briefing Tool to Improve Surgical Safety.

INTRODUCTION: Clear communication around surgical device use is crucial to patient safety. We evaluated the utility of the Device Briefing Tool (DBT) as an adjunct to the Surgical Safety Checklist. METHODS: A nonrandomized, controlled pilot of the DBT was conducted with surgical teams at an academic referral center. Intervention departments used the DBT in all cases involving a surgical device for 10 wk. Utility, relative advantage, and implementation effectiveness were evaluated via surveys. Trained observers assessed adherence and team performance using the Oxford NOTECHS system. RESULTS: Of 113 individuals surveyed, 91 responded. Most respondents rated the DBT as moderately to extremely useful. Utility was greatest for complex devices (89%) and new devices (88%). Advantages included insight into the team's familiarity with devices (70%) and improved teamwork and communication (68%). Users found it unrealistic to review all device instructional materials (54%). Free text responses suggested that the DBT heightened awareness of deficiencies in device familiarity and training but lacked a clear mechanism to correct them. DBT adherence was 82%. NOTECHS scores in intervention departments improved over the course of the study but did not significantly differ from comparator departments. CONCLUSIONS: The DBT was rated highly by both surgeons and nurses. Adherence was high and we found no evidence of "checklist fatigue." Centers interested in implementing the DBT should focus on devices that are complex or new to any surgical team member. Guidance for correcting deficiencies identified by the DBT will be provided in future iterations of the tool.

Non-technical skills in surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: An observational study.

BACKGROUND: Non-technical skills are critical to surgical safety. We examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on non-technical skills of operating room (OR) teams in Singapore. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Observers rated live operations using the Oxford NOTECHS system. Pre- and post-COVID observations were captured from November 2019 to January 2020 and from January 2021 to February 2021, respectively. Scores were compared using Schuirmann's Two One-Sided Test procedure. Multivariable linear regression was used to adjust for case mix. A 10% margin of equivalence was set a priori. RESULTS: Observers rated 159 cases: 75 pre-COVID and 84 post-COVID. There were significant differences between groups in surgical department and surgeon-reported case complexity (both P < 0.001). Total NOTECHS scores increased post-COVID on raw analysis (36.1 vs 38.0, P < 0.001) but remained within the margin of equivalence (90% CI 1.3 to 2.6, P < 0.001). Multivariable analysis demonstrated a similar increase within the margin of equivalence (2.0, 90% CI 1.3 to 2.7). Teamwork and cooperation scores increased by 1.0 post-COVID (90% CI 0.8 to 1.3); all other subcomponent scores were equivalent. CONCLUSION: Non-technical skills before and after the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic were equivalent but not equal. A small but statistically significant improvement post-COVID was driven by an increase in teamwork and cooperation skills. These findings may reflect an improvement in team cohesion, which has been observed in teams under duress in other settings such as the military. Future work should explore the effect of the pandemic on OR culture, team cohesion, and resilience.

Virtual non-technical skills assessment training is an effective, scalable approach for novice raters.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has forced a creative transition to virtual platforms due to physical distancing and travel restrictions. We designed and tested a highly scalable virtual training curriculum for novice raters using the Oxford NOTECHS non-technical skills rating system. DESIGN: A three-day training course comprising virtual didactics, virtually facilitated simulations, and independent live observations was implemented. NOTECHS scores were submitted for eleven standardized video simulations and four live operations. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated for total NOTECHS scores and subcomponent scores. Raters previously trained in-person with the same standardized videos served as a comparator group for equivalence testing. SETTING: All study activities were conducted in a large academic tertiary referral center in Singapore as part of an ongoing surgical safety initiative. PARTICIPANTS: Seven staff members underwent training (three virtually and four in-person).  None had prior surgical experience or non-technical skills assessment training. RESULTS: ICCs for total NOTECHS scores were 0.85 (95% CI, 0.73-0.98) for virtually trained raters and 0.83 for those trained in-person (95% CI, 0.68-0.99).  Scores were equivalent between groups within a 10% margin. CONCLUSIONS: Non-technical skills assessment can be reliably taught in a highly scalable virtual format. Virtual NOTECHS training is a valuable tool for educational and quality improvement initiatives during the COVID-19 pandemic and for centers that lack ready access to onsite non-technical skills training expertise.

Redeployment of Health Care Workers in the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study of Health System Leaders' Strategies.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the strategies used and critical considerations among an international sample of hospital leaders when mobilizing human resources in response to the clinical demands associated with the COVID-19 pandemic surge. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, qualitative research study designed to investigate strategies used by health system leaders from around the world when mobilizing human resources in response to the global COVD-19 pandemic. Prospective interviewees were identified through nonprobability and purposive sampling methods from May to July 2020. The primary outcomes were the critical considerations, as perceived by health system leaders, when redeploying health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic determined through thematic analysis of transcribed notes. Redeployment was defined as reassigning personnel to a different location or retraining personnel for a different task. RESULTS: Nine hospital leaders from 9 hospitals in 8 health systems located in 5 countries (United States, United Kingdom, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea) were interviewed. Six hospitals in 5 health systems experienced a surge of critically ill patients with COVID-19, and the remaining 3 hospitals anticipated, but did not experience, a similar surge. Seven of 8 hospitals redeployed their health care workforce, and 1 had a redeployment plan in place but did not need to use it. Thematic analysis of the interview notes identified 3 themes representing effective practices and lessons learned when preparing and executing workforce redeployment: process, leadership, and communication. Critical considerations within each theme were identified. Because of the various expertise of redeployed personnel, retraining had to be customized and a decentralized flexible strategy was implemented. There were 3 concerns regarding redeployed personnel. These included the fear of becoming infected, the concern over their skills and patient safety, and concerns regarding professional loss (such as loss of education opportunities in their chosen profession). Transparency via multiple different types of communications is important to prevent the development of doubt and rumors. CONCLUSIONS: Redeployment strategies should critically consider the process of redeploying and supporting the health care workforce, decentralized leadership that encourages and supports local implementation of system-wide plans, and communication that is transparent, regular, consistent, and informed by data.

We Asked the Experts: The WHO Surgical Safety Checklist and the COVID-19 Pandemic: Recommendations for Content and Implementation Adaptations.

BACKGROUND: As surgical systems are forced to adapt and respond to new challenges, so should the patient safety tools within those systems. We sought to determine how the WHO SSC might best be adapted during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: 18 Panelists from five continents and multiple clinical specialties participated in a three-round modified Delphi technique to identify potential recommendations, assess agreement with proposed recommendations and address items not meeting consensus. RESULTS: From an initial 29 recommendations identified in the first round, 12 were identified for inclusion in the second round. After discussion of recommendations without consensus for inclusion or exclusion, four additional recommendations were added for an eventual 16 recommendations. Nine of these recommendations were related to checklist content, while seven recommendations were related to implementation. CONCLUSIONS: This multinational panel has identified 16 recommendations for sites looking to use the surgical safety checklist during the COVID-19 pandemic. These recommendations provide an example of how the SSC can adapt to meet urgent and emerging needs of surgical systems by targeting important processes and encouraging critical discussions.

Training Novice Raters to Assess Nontechnical Skills of Operating Room Teams.

OBJECTIVE: To our knowledge, no curricula have been described for training novice, nonclinician raters of nontechnical skills in the operating room (OR). We aimed to report the reliability of Oxford Non-Technical Skills (NOTECHS) ratings provided by novice raters who underwent a scalable curriculum for learning to assess nontechnical skills of OR teams. DESIGN: In-person training course to apply the NOTECHS framework to assessing OR teams' nontechnical skill performance, led by 2 facilitators and involving 5 partial-day sessions of didactic presentations, video simulation, and live OR observation with postassessment debriefing. NOTECHS ratings were submitted after each of 11 video scenarios and 8 live operations for the total NOTECHS team rating (including surgical/anesthesiology/nursing subteams) and for each NOTECHS skill category-situation awareness, problem solving and decision making, teamwork and cooperation, leadership and management. Inter-rater reliability was determined by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC, range 0-1). SETTING: Training for outcome measurement during a quality improvement initiative focused on surgical safety in 3 public hospitals in Singapore. Two trainings were conducted in May 2019 and January 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Ten novice raters who were existing hospital staff and had overall minimal OR experience and no prior experience with nontechnical skill assessment. RESULTS: ICC for the total NOTECHS team rating was 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-0.91). ICCs for each NOTECHS category were as follows: situation awareness, 0.83 (95% CI, 0.78-0.88); problem solving and decision-making, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.70-0.83); teamwork and cooperation, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.79-0.88); leadership and management, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.75-0.86). CONCLUSIONS: This training curriculum for nontechnical skill assessments of OR teams was associated with high inter-rater reliability from novice raters with minimal collective OR experience. Using scalable training materials to produce reliable measurements of OR team performance, this nontechnical skills assessment curriculum may contribute to future QI projects aimed at improving surgical safety.

Correction to: Global Survey of Perceptions of the Surgical Safety Checklist Among Medical Students, Trainees, and Early Career Providers.

In the original version of the article, Dominique Vervoort's last name was misspelled. It is correct as reflected here. The original article has been updated.

Global Survey of Perceptions of the Surgical Safety Checklist Among Medical Students, Trainees, and Early Career Providers.

BACKGROUND: The Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) has been shown to reduce perioperative complications across global health systems. We sought to assess perceptions of the SSC and suggestions for its improvement among medical students, trainees, and early career providers. METHODS: From July to September 2019, a survey assessing perceptions of the SSC was disseminated through InciSioN, the International Student Surgical Network comprising medical students, trainees, and early career providers pursuing surgery. Individuals with ≥2 years of independent practice after training were excluded. Respondents were categorized according to any clinical versus solely non-clinical SSC exposure. Logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between clinical/non-clinical exposure and promoting future use of the SSC, adjusting for potential confounders/mediators: training level, human development index, and first perceptions of the SSC. Thematic analysis was conducted on suggestions for SSC improvement. RESULTS: Respondent participation rate was 24%. Three hundred and eighteen respondents were included in final analyses; 215 (67%) reported clinical exposure and 190 (60%) were promoters of future SSC use. Clinical exposure was associated with greater odds of promoting future SSC use (aOR 1.81 95% CI [1.03-3.19], p = 0.039). A greater proportion of promoters reported "Improved Operating Room Communication" as a goal of the SSC (0.21 95% CI [0.15-0.27]-vs.-0.12 [0.06-0.17], p = 0.031), while non-promoters reported the SSC goals were "Not Well Understood" (0.08 95% CI [0.03-0.12]-vs.-0.03 [0.01-0.05], p = 0.032). Suggestions for SSC improvement emphasized context-specific adaptability and earlier formal training. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical exposure to the SSC was associated with promoting its future use. Earlier formal clinical training may improve perceptions and future use among medical students, trainees, and early career providers.