Going beyond compliance: A qualitative study of the practice of surgical safety checklist.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) is a tool designed to enhance team communication and patient safety. When used properly, the SSC acts as a layer of defence against never events. In this study, we performed secondary qualitative analysis of operating theatres (OT) SSC observational notes to examine how the SSC was used after an intensive SSC re-implementation effort and drew on relevant theories to shed light on the observed patterns of behaviours. We aimed to go beyond assessing checklist compliance and to understand potential sociopsychological mechanisms of the variations in SSC practices. METHODS: Direct observation notes of 109 surgical procedures across 13 surgical disciplines were made by two trained nurses in the OT of a large tertiary hospital in Singapore from February to April 2022, three months after SSC re-implementation. Only notes relevant to the use of SSC were extracted and analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Data were coded following an inductive process to identify themes or patterns of SSC practices. These patterns were subsequently interpreted against a relevant theory to appreciate the potential sociopsychological forces behind them. RESULTS: Two broad types of SSC practices and their respective sub-themes were identified. Type 1 (vs. Type 2) SSC practices are characterized by patience and thoroughness (vs. hurriedness and omission) in carrying out the SSC process, dedication and attention (vs. delegation and distraction) to the SSC safety checks, and frequent (vs. absence of) safety voices during the conduct of SSC. These patterns were conceptualized as safety-seeking action vs. ritualistic action using Merton's social deviance theory. CONCLUSION: Ritualistic practice of the SSC can undermine surgical safety by creating conditions conducive to never events. To fully realize the SSC's potential as an essential tool for communication and safety, a concerted effort is needed to balance thoroughness with efficiency. Additionally, fostering a culture of collaboration and collegiality is crucial to reinforce and enhance the culture of surgical safety.

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.

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.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Consensus Guidelines for Emergency Laparotomy Part 3: Organizational Aspects and General Considerations for Management of the Emergency Laparotomy Patient.

BACKGROUND: This is Part 3 of the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy using an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) approach. This paper addresses organizational aspects of care. METHODS: Experts in management of the high-risk and emergency general surgical patient were invited to contribute by the International ERAS® Society. PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and MEDLINE database searches were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies were selected with particular attention to randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and large cohort studies, and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on elective patients when appropriate. A modified Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations. RESULTS: Components of organizational aspects of care were considered. Consensus was reached after three rounds of a modified Delphi process. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines are based on best current available evidence for organizational aspects of an ERAS® approach to patients undergoing emergency laparotomy and include discussion of less common aspects of care for the surgical patient, including end-of-life issues. These guidelines are not exhaustive but pull together evidence on important components of care for this high-risk patient population. As much of the evidence is extrapolated from elective surgery or emergency general surgery (not specifically laparotomy), many of the components need further evaluation in future studies.

Consensus Guidelines for Perioperative Care for Emergency Laparotomy Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations Part 2-Emergency Laparotomy: Intra- and Postoperative Care.

BACKGROUND: This is Part 2 of the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy (EL) using an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) approach. This paper addresses intra- and postoperative aspects of care. METHODS: Experts in aspects of management of high-risk and emergency general surgical patients were invited to contribute by the International ERAS® Society. PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Medline database searches were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies on each item were selected with particular attention to randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and large cohort studies and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on elective patients when appropriate. A modified Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations. Some ERAS® components covered in other guideline papers are outlined only briefly, with the bulk of the text focusing on key areas pertaining specifically to EL. RESULTS: Twenty-three components of intraoperative and postoperative care were defined. Consensus was reached after three rounds of a modified Delphi Process. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines are based on best available evidence for an ERAS® approach to patients undergoing EL. These guidelines are not exhaustive but pull together evidence on important components of care for this high-risk patient population. As much of the evidence is extrapolated from elective surgery or emergency general surgery (not specifically laparotomy), many of the components need further evaluation in future studies.

Defining the emergency general surgery patient population in the era of ICD-10 : Evaluating an established crosswalk from ICD-9 to ICD-10 diagnosis codes.

INTRODUCTION: In 2015, the United States moved from the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision ( ICD-9 ), to the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision ( ICD-10 ), coding system. The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Committee on Severity Assessment and Patient Outcomes previously established a list of ICD-9 diagnoses to define the field of emergency general surgery (EGS). This study evaluates the general equivalence mapping (GEM) crosswalk to generate an equivalent list of ICD-10 -coded EGS diagnoses. METHODS: The GEM was used to generate a list of ICD-10 codes corresponding to the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma ICD-9 EGS diagnosis codes. These individual ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes were aggregated by surgical area and diagnosis groups. The volume of patients admitted with these diagnoses in the National Inpatient Sample in the ICD-9 era (2013-2014) was compared with the ICD-10 volumes to generate observed to expected ratios. The crosswalk was manually reviewed to identify the causes of discrepancies between the ICD-9 and ICD-10 lists. RESULTS: There were 485 ICD-9 codes, across 89 diagnosis categories and 11 surgical areas, which mapped to 1,206 unique ICD-10 codes. A total of 196 (40%) ICD-9 codes have an exact one-to-one match with an ICD-10 code. The median observed to expected ratio among the diagnosis groups for a primary diagnosis was 0.98 (interquartile range, 0.82-1.12). There were five key issues identified with the ability of the GEM to crosswalk ICD-9 EGS diagnoses to ICD-10 : (1) changes in admission volumes, (2) loss of necessary modifiers, (3) lack of specific ICD-10 code, (4) mapping to a different condition, and (5) change in coding nomenclature. CONCLUSION: The GEM provides a reasonable crosswalk for researchers and others to use when attempting to identify EGS patients in with ICD-10 diagnosis codes. However, we identify key issues and deficiencies, which must be accounted for to create an accurate patient cohort. This is essential for ensuring the validity of policy, quality improvement, and clinical research work anchored in ICD-10 coded data. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Test/Criteria; Level III.

Early surgery for perforated appendicitis: Are we moving the needle on postoperative abscess?

BACKGROUND: Perforated appendicitis is often managed nonoperatively though upfront surgery is becoming more common. We describe postoperative outcomes for patients undergoing surgery at their index hospitalization for perforated appendicitis. METHODS: We used the 2016-2020 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database to identify patients with appendicitis who underwent appendectomy or partial colectomy. The primary outcome was surgical site infection (SSI). RESULTS: 132,443 patients with appendicitis underwent immediate surgery. Of 14.1% patients with perforated appendicitis, 84.3% underwent laparoscopic appendectomy. Intra-abdominal abscess rates were lowest after laparoscopic appendectomy (9.4%). Open appendectomy (OR 5.14, 95% CI 4.06-6.51) and laparoscopic partial colectomy (OR 4.60, 95% CI 2.38-8.89) were associated with higher likelihoods of SSIs. CONCLUSIONS: Upfront surgical management of perforated appendicitis is now predominantly approached by laparoscopy, often without bowel resection. Postoperative complications occurred less frequently with laparoscopic appendectomy compared to other approaches. Laparoscopic appendectomy during the index hospitalization is an effective approach to perforated appendicitis.

Predictors of care discontinuity in geriatric trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: Readmission to a non-index hospital, or care discontinuity, has been shown to have worse outcomes among surgical patients. Little is known about its effect on geriatric trauma patients. Our goal was to determine predictors of care discontinuity and to evaluate its effect on mortality in this geriatric population. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of Medicare inpatient claims (2014-2015) of geriatric trauma patients. Care discontinuity was defined as readmission within 30 days to a non-index hospital. Demographic and clinical characteristics (including readmission diagnosis category) were collected. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of care discontinuity and to assess its association with mortality. RESULTS: We included 754,313 geriatric trauma patients. Mean age was 82.13 years (SD, 0.50 years), 68% were male and 91% were White. There were 21,615 (2.87%) readmitted within 30 days of discharge. Of these, 34% were readmitted to a non-index hospital. Overall 30-day mortality after readmission was 25%. In unadjusted analysis, readmission to index hospitals was more likely to be due to surgical infection, GI complaints, or cardiac/vascular complaints. After adjusted analysis, predictors of care discontinuity included readmission diagnoses, patient- and hospital-level factors. Care discontinuity was not associated with mortality (OR, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-1.01). CONCLUSION: More than a third of geriatric trauma patients are readmitted to a non-index hospital, which is driven by readmission diagnosis, travel time and hospital characteristics. However, unlike other surgical settings, this care discontinuity is not associated with increased mortality. Further work is needed to understand the reasons for this and to determine which standardized processes of care can benefit this population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV.

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.

Impact of hospital characteristics on best-practice adherence for gallstone pancreatitis: a nationwide analysis.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend cholecystectomy during the index admission for gallstone pancreatitis, and a growing body of evidence indicates that patients benefit from cholecystectomy within the first 48 h of admission. We examined the impact of hospital characteristics on adherence to these data-driven practices. METHODS: We queried the National Inpatient Sample for patients admitted for gallstone pancreatitis between October 2015 and December 2018. Patients who underwent same-admission cholecystectomy were identified by procedure codes. Cholecystectomies within the first two days were classified as early cholecystectomies. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the association between hospital characteristics and adherence to these practices. RESULTS: Of 163,390 admissions for gallstone pancreatitis, only 90,790 (55.6%) underwent cholecystectomy before discharge. Mean time from admission to cholecystectomy was 2.9 days; 27.0% of patients (44,005) underwent early cholecystectomy. Odds of same-admission cholecystectomy were highest in large hospitals (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.13-1.28), urban teaching centers (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.21-1.46), and the South (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.57-1.83). Odds of early cholecystectomy did not vary with hospital size, urban-rural status, or teaching status but were highest in the West (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.80-2.18). CONCLUSION: Best-practice adherence for cholecystectomy in gallstone pancreatitis remains low despite an abundance of evidence and clinical practice guidelines. Active interventions are needed to improve delivery of surgical care for this patient population. Implementation efforts should focus on small hospitals, rural areas, and health systems in the Northeast region.

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.

Frequency of Device-Related Interruptions Using a Scalable Assessment Tool.

BACKGROUND: Surgical devices are implicated in approximately 15% of intraoperative interruptions and 25% of errors. Device-related interruptions (DRIs) are therefore an important target for surgical quality improvement, but scalable measurement methodologies are lacking. The researchers therefore developed, pilot tested, and refined a simple tool for assessing intraoperative DRIs. METHODS: Five DRI categories achieved face validity with frontline providers and surgical safety experts: improper/challenging assembly, device failure, loss of sterility, disconnection, and absent/wrong device. A data collection tool was created based on these categories as well as a free-text section to capture emergent DRI categories. After a brief training session, the tool was pilot tested by observers at a large academic referral center. RESULTS: In a sample of 210 operations, observers noted 66 DRIs across 39 cases. DRIs were most common in colorectal (38.0 per 100 cases), gynecologic (33.3 per 100 cases), and hepatopancreatobiliary surgery (32.1 per 100 cases). Device failure accounted for 30.3% of observed DRIs. Three emergent categories were identified: user unfamiliarity with the device (15.2%), video display malfunction (4.5%), and physical breakage of the device (1.5%). CONCLUSION: Measurement of DRIs by novice observers is a feasible and scalable approach to support quality improvement efforts focusing on surgical devices. This approach could provide actionable insights to improve device safety, such as informing educational and training programs, optimizing surgical tray composition, and improving the physical layout of the operating room.

Disparities in uptake of cholecystectomy for idiopathic pancreatitis: A nationwide retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The majority of cases of idiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP) are thought to result from occult biliary disease. A growing body of evidence suggests that cholecystectomy for IAP reduces the risk of recurrence by up to two thirds. This study examined nationwide uptake and disparities in adoption of cholecystectomy for IAP. METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample was queried to identify admissions for IAP between October 2015 and December 2018. Patients who underwent cholecystectomy before discharge and those that did not were compared using Wald χ2 tests for categorical variables and Student's t test for continuous variables. Patient- and hospital-level predictors of cholecystectomy were identified using weighted multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 62,305 estimated admissions for IAP, only 665 (1.1%) underwent cholecystectomy before discharge. Female sex, initiation of total parenteral nutrition (TPN), insurance status, and hospital type were associated with cholecystectomy on univariable analysis. On multivariable analysis, Hispanic patients (odds ration [OR] 1.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-2.56), patients on TPN (OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.17-6.24), and those with private insurance (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.48-3.21 versus Medicare/Medicaid) were more likely to receive operations. Small hospitals and hospitals in rural areas were least likely to perform empiric cholecystectomies. CONCLUSION: Despite increasing evidence supporting cholecystectomy after IAP, the practice remains rare in the United States. Educational efforts and active implementation efforts are needed to promote adoption. Particular attention should be focused on small, rural centers and those that disproportionately care for uninsured patients and patients with public insurance.

Practice patterns after implementation of a selective spinal immobilization protocol in a regional trauma system.

BACKGROUND: Universal spinal immobilization has been the standard of prehospital trauma care since the 1960s. Selective immobilization has been shown to be safe and effective for emergency medical services use, but it is unclear whether such protocols reduce unnecessary and potentially harmful immobilization practices. This study evaluated the impact of a selective spinal immobilization protocol on practice patterns in a regional trauma system. METHODS: All encounters for traumatic injury in the Tidewater Emergency Medical Services region from 2010 to 2016 were extracted from the Virginia Pre-Hospital Information Bridge. An interrupted time series analysis was used to assess practice change after system-wide protocol implementation in 2013. Intravenous access was used as a nonequivalent outcome measure in the absence of an appropriate control group. RESULTS: A total of 63,981 encounters were analyzed. At baseline, 16.7% of patients underwent full immobilization. The preprotocol slope was slightly positive (0.2% per month; 95% confidence interval, 0.1-0.2%). Slope and level changes after protocol implementation did not differ from those observed for intravenous access (-0.4% vs. -0.4% per month [ p = 0.4917] and -1.6% vs. -1.1% [ p = 0.1202], respectively). Cervical spinal immobilization became more common over the postimplementation period (0.1% per month; 95% confidence interval, 0.1-0.1%). Rates of immobilization for isolated penetrating trauma remained unchanged. CONCLUSION: Implementation of a selective spinal immobilization protocol did not reduce prehospital immobilization rates in a regional trauma system. Given the entrenched nature of immobilization practices, more intensive education and training strategies are needed. Efforts should prioritize eliminating immobilization for isolated penetrating trauma given its association with increased mortality. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Emergency General Surgery Quality Improvement: A Review of Recommended Structure and Key Issues.

Emergency general surgery (EGS) accounts for 11% of hospital admissions, with more than 3 million admissions per year and more than 50% of operative mortality in the US. Recent research into EGS has ignited multiple quality improvement initiatives, and the process of developing national standards and verification in EGS has been initiated. Such programs for quality improvement in EGS include registry formation, protocol and standards creation, evidenced-based protocols, disease-specific protocol implementation, regional collaboratives, targeting of high-risk procedures such as exploratory laparotomy, focus on special populations like geriatrics, and targeting improvements in high opportunity outcomes such as failure to rescue. The authors present a collective narrative review of advances in quality improvement structure in EGS in recent years and summarize plans for a national EGS registry and American College of Surgeons verification for this under-resourced area of surgery.

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.