Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Can Checklists Solve Our Ward Round Woes? A Systematic Review.
Treloar, Ellie C; Ting, Ying Yang; Kovoor, Joshua G; Ey, Jesse D; Reid, Jessica L; Maddern, Guy J.
Afiliação
  • Treloar EC; College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.
  • Ting YY; Discipline of Surgery, The University of Adelaide, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, 28 Woodville Road, Woodville, SA, 5011, Australia.
  • Kovoor JG; Discipline of Surgery, The University of Adelaide, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, 28 Woodville Road, Woodville, SA, 5011, Australia.
  • Ey JD; Discipline of Surgery, The University of Adelaide, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, 28 Woodville Road, Woodville, SA, 5011, Australia.
  • Reid JL; Discipline of Surgery, The University of Adelaide, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, 28 Woodville Road, Woodville, SA, 5011, Australia.
  • Maddern GJ; Discipline of Surgery, The University of Adelaide, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, 28 Woodville Road, Woodville, SA, 5011, Australia.
World J Surg ; 46(10): 2355-2364, 2022 10.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35781840
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Accurate and thorough surgical ward round documentation is crucial for maintaining quality clinical care. Accordingly, checklists have been proposed to improve ward round documentation. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the literature investigating the use of checklists to improve surgical ward round documentation.

METHODS:

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO were searched on August 16, 2021. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed in duplicate. We included English studies that investigated the use of checklists during ward rounds in various surgical subspecialties compared to routine care, where the rates of documentation were reported as outcomes. We excluded studies that used checklists in outpatient, non-surgical, or pediatric settings. Due to heterogeneity of outcome measures, meta-analysis was precluded. This study was registered with PROSPERO (ID CRD42021273735) and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 (PRISMA 2020) reporting guidelines.

RESULTS:

A total of 206 studies were identified, only 9 were suitable for inclusion. All included studies were single-center observational studies, spanning across seven surgical specialties. Rates of documentation on 4-23 parameters were reported. Documentation for all measured outcomes improved in 8/9 studies; however, statistical analyses were not included. There was a high risk of bias due to the nature of observational studies.

CONCLUSION:

Ward round checklists can serve as a useful tool to improve inpatient care and safety. Currently, there is no high-level evidence showing the effectiveness of checklists on ward round documentation. The synthesis of results indicates that further high-quality research is imperative.
Assuntos

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Visitas de Preceptoria / Lista de Checagem Tipo de estudo: Guideline / Observational_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Child / Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Visitas de Preceptoria / Lista de Checagem Tipo de estudo: Guideline / Observational_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Child / Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article