MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4302763351 · doi:10.1177/2327857922111016

Characterizing and Contextualizing the Use of the Surgical Safety Checklist in General Surgery

2022· article· en· W4302763351 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jeunice Vianca Evangelista, Cherryl Li, Kimberley-Dale Rebecca Ng, Mark Fan, Patricia Trbovich

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Safety and Medication Errors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChecklistPatient safetyTimeoutAuditDebriefingWorkflowPsychologyMedical emergencyMedicineMedical educationComputer scienceHealth careDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Surgical Safety Checklist (SSCL) is a widely implemented intervention; however, limited studies have explored system factors that impact adherence to proper checklist completion. Using an audio-visual recording technology called the Operating Room Blackbox (ORBB), the goal of this study was to characterize the level of checklist completion and identify work system factors that impact the use of the SSCL in general laparoscopic surgery. Thirty-six cases captured by the ORBB in a hospital in Toronto, Ontario were reviewed using an SSCL audit tool to collect data on item-level adherence. The Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) 2.0 model was applied to the observation notes from the ORBB recordings to identify work system factors influencing checklist use. On average, across all 36 cases, 8 of the 29 checklist items were completed (30.1%), with debriefing being completed most frequently of the 3 checklist sections. Of the 29 checklist items, commonly completed items were: patient concerns addressed, surgical counts complete, and procedure name, while items in the timeout section were completed the least. Notably, factors related to person (e.g., confirmation of patient information amongst surgical team) and tools and technology (e.g., use of checklist in combination with patient chart) were identified as facilitators to checklist use, while factors relating to tasks (e.g., redundancy of checklist items with existing workflow), tools and technology (e.g., some checklist items not applicable to some procedures), organization (e.g, timing of checklist items and absence of team member), and internal environment (e.g., music volume in the OR) were identified as potential barriers to checklist use. By understanding how system factors contribute to checklist use and item-level adherence, we can identify ways to improve the checklist to meet the needs of the OR team and enhance integration of the SSCL into existing workflows.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.100
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.100
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.100
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health CareSame topicPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsFrench-language works237,207