Is self-screening for 'at risk of malnutrition' feasible in a home setting?

INTRODUCTION: Despite malnutrition being established as a well-known risk for postoperative complications, the lack of screening for nutritional risk remains a challenge. The aim of this study was to investigate whether self-screening for nutritional risk prior to surgery is feasible in a home setting and if it will increase number of patients screened for nutritional risk, and secondly, to compare their screening results with the "in-hospital assessments" conducted by healthcare professionals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective study involving patients from six randomly selected surgical wards at two Norwegian hospitals as a part of the "Feasibility study of implementing the surgical Patient Safety Checklist the (PASC)". This checklist included a self-reported screening tool based on the Nutritional Risk Screening tool (NRS 2002) to identify "at risk of malnutrition" in patients that will undergo surgery the next 3 months or less. The original screening tool (NRS 2002) was used as a standard routine to identify "at risk of malnutrition" by healthcare professionals at hospital. The interrater reliability between these results was investigated using Fleiss multi rater Kappa with overall agreement and reported with Landis and Koch's grading system (poor, slight, fair, moderate, substantial, and almost perfect). RESULTS: Out of 215 surgical patients in the home setting, 164 (76.7%) patients completed the self-reported screening tool. A total of 123 (57.2%) patients were screened in-hospital, of whom 96 (44.7%) prior to surgery and 96 (44.7%) were screened both at hospital (pre- and post-surgery) and at home. Self-screening at home improved malnutrition screening participation by 71.9% compared to hospital screening prior to surgery (165 (76.7%) and 96 (44.7%), respectively) and by 34.1% compared to pre- and postoperative in-hospital screening, 165 (76.7%) and 123 (57.2%), respectively). The degree of agreement between patients identified to be "at risk of malnutrition" by the self-reported screening tool and healthcare professionals was poor (κ = - 0.04 (95% CI: -0.24, 0.16), however, the degrees of agreement between the patients and healthcare professionals answers to the initial NRS 2002 questions "low BMI", "weight loss", and "reduced food intake" were almost perfect (κ = 1.00 (95% CI: 0,82, 1.18)), moderate (κ = 0.55 (95% CI: 0.34, 0.75)), and slight (κ = 0.08 (95% CI: - 0.10, 0.25) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Three out of four patients completed the self-screening form and the preoperative screening rate improved with 70%. Preoperatively self-screening in a home setting may be a feasible method to increase the number of elective surgical patients screened for risk of malnutrition. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT03105713. https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03105713.

The 2024 revision of the Norwegian standard for the safe practice of anaesthesia.

The Norwegian standard for the safe practice of anaesthesia was first published in 1991, and revised in 1994, 1998, 2005, 2010 and 2016 respectively. The 1998 version was published in English for the first time in Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica in 2002. It must be noted that this is a national standard, reflecting the specific opportunities and challenges in a Norwegian setting, which may be different from other countries in some respects. A feature of the Norwegian healthcare system is the availability, on a national basis, of specifically highly trained and qualified nurse anaesthetists. Another feature is the geography, with parts of the population living in remote areas. These may be served by small, local emergency hospitals. Emergency transport of patients to larger hospitals is not always achievable when weather conditions are rough. These features and challenges were considered important when designing a balanced and consensus-based national standard for the safe practice of anaesthesia, across Norwegian clinical settings. In this article, we present the 2024 revision of the document. This article presents a direct translation of the complete document from the Norwegian original.

The association between patient safety culture and adverse events - a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Adverse events (AEs) affect 10% of in-hospital patients, causing increased costs, injuries, disability and mortality. Patient safety culture (PSC) is an indicator of quality in healthcare services and is thus perceived as a proxy for the quality of care. Previous studies show variation in the association between PSC scores and AE rates. The main objective of this scoping review is to summarise the evidence on the association between PSC scores and AE rates in healthcare services. In addition, map the characteristics and the applied research methodology in the included studies, and study the strengths and limitations of the evidence. METHODS: We applied a scoping review methodology to answer the broad research questions of this study, following the PRISMA-ScR checklist. A systematic search in seven databases was conducted in January 2022. The records were screened independently against eligibility criteria using Rayyan software, and the extracted data were collated in a charting form. Descriptive representations and tables display the systematic mapping of the literature. RESULTS: We included 34 out of 1,743 screened articles. The mapping demonstrated a statistical association in 76% of the studies, where increased PSC scores were associated with reduced AE rates. Most of the studies had a multicentre design and were conducted in-hospital in high-income countries. The methodological approaches to measuring the association varied, including missing reports on the tools` validation and participants, different medical specialties, and work unit level of measurements. In addition, the review identified a lack of eligible studies for meta-analysis and synthesis and demonstrated a need for an in-depth understanding of the association, including context complexity. CONCLUSIONS: We found that the vast majority of studies report reduced AE rates when PSC scores increase. This review demonstrates a lack of studies from primary care and low- and- middle-income countries. There is a discrepancy in utilised concepts and methodology, hence there is a need for a broader understanding of the concepts and the contextual factors, and more uniform methodology. Longitudinal prospective studies with higher quality can enhance efforts to improve patient safety.

Feasibility of implementing a surgical patient safety checklist: prospective cross-sectional evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization's Global Patient Safety Action Plan 2021-2030 call for attention to patient and family involvement to reduce preventable patient harm. Existing evidence indicates that patients' involvement in their own safety has positive effects on reducing hospitalisation time and readmissions. One intervention reported in the literature is the use of checklists designed for patients' completion. Studies on such checklists are small scale, but they are linked to reduction in length of hospital stay and readmissions. We have previously developed and validated a two-part surgical patient safety checklist (PASC). This study aims to investigate the feasibility of the PASC usage and implementation prior to its use in a large-scale clinical trial. METHODS: This is a prospective cross-sectional feasibility study, set up as part of the design of a larger stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial (SW-CRCT). Descriptive statistics were used to investigate patient demographics, reasons for not completing the PASC and percentage of PASC item usage. Qualitative patient interviews were used to identify barriers and drivers for implementation. Interview was analysed through content analysis. RESULTS: Out of 428 recruited patients, 50.2% (215/428) used both parts of PASC. A total of 24.1% (103/428) of the patients did not use it at all due to surgical or COVID-19-related cancellations. A total of 19.9% (85/428) did not consent to participate, 5.1% (22/428) lost the checklist and 0.7% (3/428) of the patients died during the study. A total of 86.5% (186/215) patients used ≥ 80% of the checklist items. Barriers and drivers for PASC implementation were grouped into the following categories: Time frame for completing the checklist, patient safety checklist design, impetus to communicate with healthcare professionals and support throughout the surgical pathway. CONCLUSIONS: Elective surgical patients were willing and able to use PASC. The study further revealed a set of barriers and drivers to the implementation. A large-scale definitive clinical-implementation hybrid trial is being launched to ascertain the clinical effectiveness and scalability of PASC in improving surgical patient safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03105713. Registered 10.04.2017.

Development and validation of patients' surgical safety checklist.

BACKGROUND: Poor uptake and understanding of critical perioperative information represent a major safety risk for surgical patients. Implementing a patient-driven surgical safety checklist might enhance the way critical information is given and increase patient involvement in their own safety throughout the surgical pathway. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a Surgical Patient Safety Checklist (PASC) for use by surgical patients. METHOD: This was a prospective study, involving patient representatives, multidisciplinary healthcare professionals and elective surgical patients to develop and validate PASC using consensus-building techniques in two Norwegian hospitals. A set of items intended for PASC were rated by patients and then submitted to Content Validation Index (CVI) analyses. Items of low CVI went through a Healthcare Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (HFMEA) Hazard Scoring process, as well as a consensus process before they were either kept or discarded. Reliability of patients' PASC ratings was assessed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient analysis. Lastly, the face validity of PASC was investigated through focus group interviews with postoperative patients. RESULTS: Initial development of PASC resulted in a checklist consisting of two parts, one before (32 items) and one after surgery (26 items). After achieving consensus on the PASC content, 215 surgical patients from six surgical wards rated the items for the CVI analysis on a 1-4 scale and mostly agreed on the content. Five items were removed from the checklist, and six items were redesigned to improve PASCs' user-friendliness. The total Scale-level index/Average (S-CVI/Ave) before revision was 0.83 and 0.86 for pre- and post-operative PASC items, respectively. Following revision, these increased to 0.86 and 0.93, respectively. The PASC items reliability score was 0.97 (95% confidence interval 0.96 to 0.98). The qualitative assessment identified that patients who used PASC felt more in control of their situation; this was achieved when PASC was given to them at what they felt was the right time and healthcare professionals took part in its usage. CONCLUSION: Multidisciplinary perioperative care staff and surgical patients agreed upon PASC content, the checklist ratings were reliable, and qualitative assessment suggested good face validity. PASC appears to be a usable and valid checklist for elective surgical patients across specialties.

A Health Economic Evaluation of the World Health Organization Surgical Safety Checklist: A Single Center Assessment.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate cost-effectiveness of the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist. BACKGROUND: The clinical effectiveness of surgical checklists is largely understood. Few studies to-date have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of checklist use. METHODS: An economic evaluation was carried out using data from the only available randomized controlled trial of the checklist. Analyses were based on 3702 procedures. Costs considered included checklist implementation costs and length and cost of hospital stay, costs of warming blanket use, blood transfusions and antibiotics used in the operating room, and the cost of clinical time in the operating room - all calculated for each procedure and its associated admission. Nonparametric bootstrapping was used to simulate an empirical distribution of the mean effect of the checklist on total admission costs and the probability of observing a complication-free admission and to quantify sampling uncertainty around mean cost estimates. RESULTS: The overall cost of checklist implementation was calculated to be $900 per 100 admissions. Implementation of the WHO checklist resulted in an additional 5.9 complication-free admissions per 100 admissions and an average of 110 bed-days saved per 100 admissions. Accounting for all costs included in the analysis, for every 100 admissions, use of the WHO checklist was estimated to save $55,899. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the WHO checklist was a cost-effective strategy for improving surgical safety.

Impact of the Norwegian National Patient Safety Program on implementation of the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist and on perioperative safety culture.

OBJECTIVES: Our primary objective was to study the impact of the Norwegian National Patient Safety Campaign and Program on Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) implementation and on safety culture. Secondary objective was associations between SSC fidelity and safety culture. We hypothesised that the programme influenced on SSC use and operating theatre personnel's safety culture perceptions. SETTING: A longitudinal cross-sectional study was conducted in a large Norwegian tertiary teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: We invited 1754 operating theatre personnel to participate in the study, of which 920 responded to the surveys at three time points in 2009, 2010 and 2017. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was the results of the patient safety culture measured by the culturally adapted Norwegian version of the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture. Our previously published results from 2009/2010 were compared with new data collected in 2017. Secondary outcome was correlation between SSC fidelity and safety culture. Fidelity was electronically recorded. RESULTS: Survey response rates were 61% (349/575), 51% (292/569) and 46% (279/610) in 2009, 2010 and 2017, respectively. Eight of the 12 safety culture dimensions significantly improved over time with the largest increase being 'Hospital managers' support to patient safety' from a mean score of 2.82 at baseline in 2009 to 3.15 in 2017 (mean change: 0.33, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.44). Fidelity in use of the SSC averaged 88% (26 741/30 426) in 2017. Perceptions of safety culture dimensions in 2009 and in 2017 correlated significantly though weakly with fidelity (r=0.07-0.21). CONCLUSION: The National Patient Safety Program, fostering engagement from trust boards, hospital managers and frontline operating theatre personnel enabled effective implementation of the SSC. As part of a wider strategic safety initiative, implementation of SSC coincided with an improved safety culture.

Clinical Efficacy of Combined Surgical Patient Safety System and the World Health Organization's Checklists in Surgery: A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Checklists have been shown to improve patient outcomes in surgery. The intraoperatively used World Health Organization surgical safety checklist (WHO SSC) is now mandatory in many countries. The only evidenced checklist to address preoperative and postoperative care is the Surgical Patient Safety System (SURPASS), which has been found to be effective in improving patient outcomes. To date, the WHO SSC and SURPASS have not been studied jointly within the perioperative pathway. Objective: To investigate the association of combined use of the preoperative and postoperative SURPASS and the WHO SSC in perioperative care with morbidity, mortality, and length of hospital stay. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a stepped-wedge cluster nonrandomized clinical trial, the preoperative and postoperative SURPASS checklists were implemented in 3 surgical departments (neurosurgery, orthopedics, and gynecology) in a Norwegian tertiary hospital, serving as their own controls. Three surgical units offered additional parallel controls. Data were collected from November 1, 2012, to March 31, 2015, including surgical procedures without any restrictions to patient age. Data were analyzed from September 25, 2018, to March 29, 2019. Interventions: Individualized preoperative and postoperative SURPASS checklists were added to the intraoperative WHO SSC. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were in-hospital complications, emergency reoperations, unplanned 30-day readmissions, and 30-day mortality. The secondary outcome was length of hospital stay (LOS). Results: In total, 9009 procedures (5601 women [62.2%]; mean [SD] patient age, 51.7 [22.2] years) were included, with 5117 intervention procedures (mean [SD] patient age, 51.8 [22.4] years; 2913 women [56.9%]) compared with 3892 controls (mean [SD] patient age, 51.5 [21.8] years; 2688 women [69.1%]). Parallel control units included 9678 procedures (mean [SD] patient age, 57.4 [22.2] years; 4124 women [42.6%]). In addition to the WHO SSC, adjusted analyses showed that adherence to the preoperative SURPASS checklists was associated with reduced complications (odds ratio [OR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.50-0.98; P = .04) and reoperations (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.23-0.76; P = .004). Adherence to the postoperative SURPASS checklists was associated with decreased readmissions (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.16-0.64; P = .001). No changes were observed in mortality or LOS. In parallel control units, complications increased (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.01-1.17; P = .04), whereas reoperations, readmissions, and mortality remained unchanged. Conclusions and Relevance: In this nonrandomized clinical trial, adding preoperative and postoperative SURPASS to the WHO SSC was associated with a reduction in the rate of complications, reoperations, and readmissions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01872195.

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

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.

Patients' and healthcare workers' recommendations for a surgical patient safety checklist - a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Patients' involvement in patient safety has increased in healthcare. Use of checklists may improve patient outcome in surgery, though few have attempted to engage patients' use of surgical checklist. To identify risk elements of complications based on patients' and healthcare workers' experiences is warranted. This study aims to identify what the patients and healthcare workers find to be the risk elements that should be included in a patient-driven surgical patient safety checklist. METHOD: A qualitative study design where post-operative patients, surgeons, ward physicians, ward nurses, and secretaries from five surgical specialties took part in focus group interviews. Eleven focus groups were conducted including 25 post-operative patients and 27 healthcare workers at one tertiary teaching hospital and one community hospital in Norway. Based on their experiences, participants were asked to identify perceived risks before and after surgery. The interviews were analysed using content analysis. RESULTS: Safety risk factors were categorised as pre-operative information: pre-operative preparations, post-operative information, post-operative plans and follow-up. The subcategories under pre-operative information and preparations were: contact information, medication safety, health status, optimising health, dental status, read information, preparation two weeks before surgery, inform your surgical ward, planning your own discharge, preparation on admission and just before surgery. The subcategories under post-operative information, further plans and follow-up were: prevention and complications, restriction and activity, medication safety, pain relief, stomach functions, further care and appointments. Both healthcare workers and patients express the need for a surgical patient safety checklist. CONCLUSION: A broad spectre of risk elements for a patient safety checklist were identified. Developing a surgical safety checklist based on these risk elements might reduce complications and unwanted errors. TRAIL REGISTRATION: The study is registered as part of a clinical trial in ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03105713.

Discharge care quality in hospitalised elderly patients: Extended validation of the Discharge Care Experiences Survey.

BACKGROUND: The Discharge Care Experiences Survey (DICARES) was previously developed to measure quality of discharge care in elderly patients (≥ 65 years). The objective of this study was to test the factorial validity of responses of the DICARES, and to investigate its association with existing quality indicators. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study at two hospitals in Bergen, Western Norway. A survey, including DICARES, was sent by postal mail to 1,418 patients 30 days after discharge from hospital. To test the previously identified three-factor structure of the DICARES we applied a first order confirmatory factor analysis with corresponding fit indices and reliability measures. Spearman's correlation coefficients, and linear regression, was used to investigate the association of DICARES scores with the quality indicators Nordic Patient Experiences Questionnaire and emergency readmission within 30 days. RESULTS: A total of 493 (35%) patients completed the survey. The mean age of the respondents was 79 years (SD = 8) and 52% were women. The confirmatory factor analysis showed acceptable fit. Cronbach's α between items within factors was 0.82 (Coping after discharge), 0.71 (Adherence to treatment), and 0.66 (Participation in discharge planning). DICARES was moderately correlated with the Nordic Patient Experiences Questionnaire (rho = 0.49, P < 0.001). DICARES overall score was higher in patients with no readmissions compared to those who were emergency readmitted within 30 days (P < 0.001), indicating that more positive experiences were associated with fewer readmissions. CONCLUSIONS: DICARES appears to be a feasible instrument for measuring quality of discharge care in elderly patients (≥ 65 years). This brief questionnaire seems to be sensitive with regard to readmission, and independent of comorbidity. Further studies of patients' experiences are warranted to identify elements that impact on discharge care in other patient groups.

Investigation of perioperative work processes in provision of antibiotic prophylaxis: a prospective descriptive qualitative study across surgical specialties in Norway.

OBJECTIVE: Surgical site infections are known postoperative complications, yet the most preventable of healthcare-associated infections. Correct provision of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) is crucial. Use of the WHO Safe Surgical Checklist (SSC) has been reported to improve provision of SAP, and reduce infections postoperatively. To understand possible mechanisms and interactions generating such effects, we explored the underlying work processes of SAP provision and SSC performance at the intersection of perioperative procedures and actual team working. DESIGN: An ethnographic study including observations and in-depth interviews. A combination of deductive and inductive content analysis of the data was conducted. SETTING: Operating theatres with different surgical specialities, in three Norwegian hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Observations of perioperative team working (40 hours) and in-depth interviews of 19 experienced perioperative team members were conducted. Interview participants followed a maximum variation purposive sampling strategy. RESULTS: Analysis identified provision of SAP as a process of linked activities; sequenced, yet disconnected in time and space throughout the perioperative phase. Provision of SAP was handled in relation to several interactive factors: preparation and administration, prescription accuracy, diversity of prescription order systems, patient-specific conditions and changes in operating theatre schedules. However, prescription checks were performed either as formal SSC reviews of SAP items or as informal checks of relevant documents. In addition, use of cognitive reminders and clinical experiences were identified as mechanisms used to enable administration of SAP within the 60 min timeframe described in the SSC. CONCLUSION: Provision of SAP was identified as a complex process. Yet, a key element in provision of SAP was the given 60 min. timeframe of administration before incision, provided in the SSC. Thus, the SSC seems beneficial in supporting timely SAP administration practice by either being a cognitive tool and/or as a cognitive intervention.

Validation of a Norwegian version of SURgical PAtient Safety System (SURPASS) in combination with the World Health Organizations' Surgical Safety Checklist (WHO SSC).

Introduction: Surgical safety checklists may contribute to reduction of complications and mortality. The WHO's Surgical Safety Checklist (WHO SSC) could prevent incidents in operating theatres, but errors also occur before and after surgery. The SURgical PAtient Safety System (SURPASS) is designed to intercept errors with use of checklists throughout the surgical pathway. Objective: We aimed to validate a Norwegian version of the SURPASS' preoperative and postoperative checklists for use in combination with the already established Sign In, Time Out and Sign Out parts of the WHO SSC. Methods and materials: The validation of the SURPASS checklists content followed WHOs recommended guidelines. The process consisted of six steps: forward translation; testing the content; focus groups; expert panels; back translation; and approval of the final version. Qualitative content analysis was used to identify codes and categories for adaption of the SURPASS checklist items throughout Norwegian surgical care. Content validity index (CVI) was used by expert panels to score the relevance of each checklist item. The study was carried out in a neurosurgical ward in a large tertiary teaching hospital in Norway. Results: Testing the preoperative and postoperative SURPASS checklists was performed in 29 neurosurgical procedures. This involved all professional groups in the entire surgical patient care pathway. Eight clinical focus groups revealed two main categories: 'Adapt the wording to fit clinical practice' and 'The checklist items challenge existing workflow'. Interprofessional scoring of the content validity of the checklists reached >80% for all the SURPASS checklists. Conclusions: The first version of the SURPASS checklists combined with the WHO SSC was validated for use in Norwegian surgical care with face validity confirmed and CVI >0.80%. Trial registration number: NCT01872195.

Causal Analysis of World Health Organization's Surgical Safety Checklist Implementation Quality and Impact on Care Processes and Patient Outcomes: Secondary Analysis From a Large Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial in Norway.

OBJECTIVE: We hypothesize that high-quality implementation of the World Health Organization's Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) will lead to improved care processes and subsequently reduction of peri- and postoperative complications. BACKGROUND: Implementation of the SSC was associated with robust reduction in morbidity and length of in-hospital stay in a stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial conducted in 2 Norwegian hospitals. Further investigation of precisely how the SSC improves care processes and subsequently patient outcomes is needed to understand the causal mechanisms of improvement. METHODS: Care process metrics are reported from one of our earlier trial hospitals. Primary outcomes were in-hospital complications and care process metrics, e.g., patient warming and antibiotics. Secondary outcome was quality of SSC implementation. Analyses include Pearson's exact χ test and binary logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 3702 procedures (1398 control vs. 2304 intervention procedures) were analyzed. High-quality SSC implementation (all 3 checklist parts) improved processes and outcomes of care. Use of forced air warming blankets increased from 35.3% to 42.4% (P < 0.001). Antibiotic administration postincision decreased from 12.5% to 9.8%, antibiotic administration preincision increased from 54.5% to 63.1%, and nonadministration of antibiotics decreased from 33.0% to 27.1%. Surgical infections decreased from 7.4% (104/1398) to 3.6% (P < 0.001). Adjusted SSC effect on surgical infections resulted in an odds ratio (OR) of 0.52 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.38-0.72) for intervention procedures, 0.54 (95% CI: 0.37-0.79) for antibiotics provided before incision, and 0.24 (95% CI: 0.11-0.52) when using forced air warming blankets. Blood transfusion costs were reduced by 40% with the use of the SSC. CONCLUSIONS: When implemented well, the SSC improved operating room care processes; subsequently, high-quality SSC implementation and improved care processes led to better patient outcomes.

Measuring discharge quality based on elderly patients' experiences with discharge conversation: a cross-sectional study.

Background: Discharge conversation is an essential part of preparing patients for the period after hospitalisation. Successful communication during such conversations is associated with improved health outcomes for patients. Objective: To investigate the association between discharge conversation and discharge quality assessed by measuring elderly patients' experiences. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we surveyed all patients ≥65 years who had been discharged from two medical units in two hospitals in Western Norway 30 days prior. We measured patient experiences using two previously validated instruments: The Discharge Care Experiences Survey Modified (DICARES-M) and The Nordic Patient Experiences Questionnaire (NORPEQ). We examined differences in characteristics between patients who reported having a discharge conversation with those who did not, and used regression analyses to examine the associations of the DICARES-M and NORPEQ with the usefulness of discharge conversation. Results: Of the 1418 invited patients, 487 (34%) returned the survey. Their mean age was 78.5 years (SD=8.3) and 52% were women. The total sample mean scores for the DICARES-M and NORPEQ were 3.9 (SD=0.7, range: 1.5-5.0) and 4.0 (SD=0.7, range: 2.2-5.0), respectively. Higher DICARES-M and NORPEQ scores were found for patients who reported having a discharge conversation (74%) compared with those who did not (15%), or were unsure (11%) whether they had a conversation (p<0.001). Patients who considered the conversation more useful had significantly higher scores on both the DICARES-M and NORPEQ (p<0.001). Conclusions: Reported discharge conversation at the hospital was correlated with positive patient experiences measurements indicating the increased quality of hospital discharge care. The reported usefulness of the conversation had a significant association with discharge care quality.

Elderly patients' (≥65 years) experiences associated with discharge; Development, validity and reliability of the Discharge Care Experiences Survey.

BACKGROUND: A review of the literature reveals a lack of validated instruments that particularly measure quality in the hospital discharge process. This study aims to develop and validate a survey instrument feasible for measuring quality (≥65 years) related to the discharge process based on elderly patients' experiences. METHODS: Construction of the Discharge Care Patient Experience Survey (DICARES) was based on 16 items identified by literature reviews. Intraclass correlation for test-retest was applied to assess consistency of the survey. Explorative factors analysis was applied to identify and validate the factor structures of the DICARES. Cronbach's α was used to assess internal reliability. To evaluate the external validity of the final DICARES questionnaire the patients' scores were correlated with scores obtained from the three other questionnaires; the Nordic Patient Experiences Questionnaire, the 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey and Subjective Health Complaints. The DICARES association with readmissions was examined. RESULTS: A total of 270 patients responded (64.4%). The mean age of participants was 77.1 years and 57.8% were men. The exploratory factor analysis resulted in a 10-item instrument consisting of three factors explaining 63.5% of the total variance. The Cronbach's α were satisfactory (≥70). Overall intraclass correlation was 0.76. A moderate Spearman correlation (rho = 0.54, p <0.01) was found between the total mean DICARES score and total mean score of the Nordic Patient Experiences Questionnaire. The total mean DICARES score was inversely associated with the quality indicator based on readmissions (OR 0.62, CI 95: 0.41-0.95, p = 0.028). CONCLUSION: We have developed a 10-item questionnaire consisting of three factors which may be a feasible instrument for measuring quality of the discharge process in elderly patients. Further testing in a wider population should be carried out before implementation in health care settings.

Preventing Complications: The Preflight Checklist.

Compliance with the World Health Organisation Surgical Safety Checklist is associated with reduction of complications and mortality.

Effect of the World Health Organization checklist on patient outcomes: a stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: We hypothesized reduction of 30 days' in-hospital morbidity, mortality, and length of stay postimplementation of the World Health Organization's Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC). BACKGROUND: Reductions of morbidity and mortality have been reported after SSC implementation in pre-/postdesigned studies without controls. Here, we report a randomized controlled trial of the SSC. METHODS: A stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted in 2 hospitals. We examined effects on in-hospital complications registered by International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes, length of stay, and mortality. The SSC intervention was sequentially rolled out in a random order until all 5 clusters-cardiothoracic, neurosurgery, orthopedic, general, and urologic surgery had received the Checklist. Data were prospectively recorded in control and intervention stages during a 10-month period in 2009-2010. RESULTS: A total of 2212 control procedures were compared with 2263 SCC procedures. The complication rates decreased from 19.9% to 11.5% (P < 0.001), with absolute risk reduction 8.4 (95% confidence interval, 6.3-10.5) from the control to the SSC stages. Adjusted for possible confounding factors, the SSC effect on complications remained significant with odds ratio 1.95 (95% confidence interval, 1.59-2.40). Mean length of stay decreased by 0.8 days with SCC utilization (95% confidence interval, 0.11-1.43). In-hospital mortality decreased significantly from 1.9% to 0.2% in 1 of the 2 hospitals post-SSC implementation, but the overall reduction (1.6%-1.0%) across hospitals was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the WHO SSC was associated with robust reduction in morbidity and length of in-hospital stay and some reduction in mortality.