Search

Introduction: Clinical teams struggle on general wards with acute management of deteriorating patients. We hypothesized that the Crisis Checklist App, a mobile application containing checklists tailored to crisis-management, can improve teamwork and acute care management.Methods: A before-and-after study was undertaken in high-fidelity simulation centres in the Netherlands, Denmark and United Kingdom. Clinical teams completed three scenarios with a deteriorating patient without checklists followed by three scenarios using the Crisis Checklist App. Teamwork performance as the primary outcome was assessed by the Mayo High Performance Teamwork scale. The secondary outcomes were the time required to complete all predefined safety-critical steps, percentage of omitted safety-critical steps, effects on other non-technical skills, and users' self-assessments. Linear mixed models and a non-parametric survival test were conducted to assess these outcomes.Results: 32 teams completed 188 scenarios. The Mayo High Performance Teamwork scale mean scores improved to 23.4 out of 32 (95% CI: 22.4-24.3) with the Crisis Checklist App compared to 21.4 (20.4-22.3) with local standard of care. The mean difference was 1.97 (1.34-2.6; p < 0.001). Teams that used the checklists were able to complete all safety-critical steps of a scenario in more simulations (40/95 vs 21/93 scenarios) and these steps were completed faster (stratified log-rank test χ2 = 8.0; p = 0.005). The self-assessments of the observers and users showed favourable effects after checklist usage for other non-technical skills including situational awareness, decision making, task management and communication.Conclusions: Implementation of a novel mobile crisis checklist application among clinical teams was associated in a simulated general ward setting with improved teamwork performance, and a higher and faster completion rate of predetermined safety-critical steps. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Checklists are increasingly used to measure quality of care. Recently we implemented an antibiotic checklist in nine Dutch hospitals and showed that use of the checklist resulted in more appropriate antibiotic use. While more appropriate antibiotic use was associated with a reduction in length of stay, use of the checklist in itself was not. In the current study we explored discrepancies between reported and actually performed checklist items at the patient level to test the validity of checklist answers, to evaluate whether discrepancies between reported and actually performed checklist items could explain the lack of effect of checklist use on length of stay, and to identify missed opportunities for performance per checklist item.Methods: Checklist answers represented reported performance. Actual performance was assessed by data from the patients' medical files. Reported and actually performed checklist items could be 'both YES'; 'both NO'; 'YES reported, NOT actually performed'; or 'NO reported, YES actually performed'. We determined an overall 'both YES' score per checklist, and used mixed models to evaluate whether an association existed between this overall score and patient's length of hospital stay. Finally, we analysed whether the items that were not actually performed, could have been performed.Results: Between January and October 2015 physicians filled in 1207 checklists. In total 7881 items were checked. Most items were 'both YES' (3392/7881, 43.0%) or 'both NO' (2601/7881, 33.0%). The number of 'YES reported, NOT actually performed' items was 1628/7881 (20.7%) compared to 260/7881 (3.3%) 'NO reported, YES actually performed' items. The level of discrepancy between reported and actually performed items differed per checklist item. The item 'prescribe antibiotic treatment according to the local guideline' had the highest percentage of 'YES reported, NOT actually performed' items, namely 45.1%. A higher overall 'both YES' score of the checklist was significantly associated with a shorter length of hospital stay. Of all checklist items 21.8% were not performed while they could have been performed.Conclusions: Checklist answers do not accurately assess actual provided care. As actual performance of the antibiotic checklist items is associated with length of stay, efforts to increase actual performance appear to be justified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is an ongoing debate regarding the cause of diagnostic errors. One view is that errors result from unconscious application of cognitive heuristics; the alternative is that errors are a consequence of knowledge deficits. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of checklists that (a) identify and address cognitive biases or (b) promote knowledge retrieval, as a means to reduce errors in ECG interpretation. Novice postgraduate year (PGY) 1 emergency medicine and internal medicine residents (n = 40) and experienced cardiology fellows (PGY 4-6) (n = 21) were randomly allocated to three conditions: a debiasing checklist, a content (knowledge) checklist, or control (no checklist) to be used while interpreting 20 ECGs. Half of the ECGs were deliberately engineered to predispose to bias. Diagnostic performance under either checklist intervention was not significantly better than the control. As expected, more errors occurred when cases were designed to induce bias (F = 96.9, p < 0.0001). There was no significant interaction between the instructional condition and level of learner. Checklists attempting to help learners identify cognitive bias or mobilize domain-specific knowledge did not have an overall effect in reducing diagnostic errors in ECG interpretation, although they may help novices. Even when cognitive biases are deliberately inserted in cases, cognitive debiasing checklists did not improve participants' performance.

Background: Since the increase of the number of technological aids in the operating room (OR), equipment-related incidents have come to be a common kind of adverse events. This underlines the importance of adequate equipment management to improve the safety in the OR., Objective: A system was developed to monitor the safety status (periodic maintenance and registered malfunctions) of OR devices and to facilitate the notification of malfunctions. The objective was to assess whether the system is suitable for use in an busy OR setting and to analyse its effect on the notification of malfunctions., Methods: The system checks automatically the safety status of OR devices through constant communication with the technical facility management system, informs the OR staff real-time and facilitates notification of malfunctions. The system was tested for a pilot period of six months in four ORs of a Dutch teaching hospital and 17 users were interviewed on the usability of the system., Results: The users provided positive feedback on the usability. For 86.6% of total time, the localisation of OR devices was accurate. 62 malfunctions of OR devices were reported, an increase of 12 notifications compared to the previous year., Conclusions: The safety status system was suitable for an OR complex, both from a usability and technical point of view, and an increase of reported malfunctions was observed. The system eases monitoring the safety status of equipment and is a promising tool to improve the safety related to OR devices.