Healthcare professionals’ perception of the World Health Organization Surgical Safety Checklist and psychological safety: a cross-sectional survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) is a cornerstone of ensuring the safety and accuracy of communication among interdisciplinary teams in the operating room. Central to the successful implementation of such a checklist is the concept of psychological safety. Despite the extensive body of research on the checklists' efficacy, the association between healthcare professionals' (HCPs) perceptions of the checklist and their level of psychological safety remains uninvestigated. This study attempts to address this gap by examining how their perceptions of the checklist intersect with their sense of psychological safety. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey comprising 25 items was conducted from November 2022 to January 2023 on; Demographics (6 items), the SSC (12 items), and the Psychological Safety Scale (7 items). We invited 125 HCPs from five different professional groups in the operation ward to complete the survey. RESULTS: Of the 125 asked to participate, 107 responded, and 100 of whom completed the entire survey. The level of psychological safety increased by 1.25 (95 % CI 0.36 to 2.14, p=0.006) per one-point increase of the perception that colleagues listen when checklist items are being reviewed, and increased by 1.1 (95% CI 0.4 to 1.7, p=0.002) per one-point increase in the perception that the checklist enhances interdisciplinary teamwork, and increased by 0.86 (95% CI 0.15 to 1.57, p=0.02) per one-point increase in the perception that the checklist provides structure in the operating room. Conversely, the level of psychological safety decreased by 1.4 (95 % CI 0.5 to 2.3, p=0.004) per one-point increase in the perception that the checklist is time-consuming. CONCLUSION: Our findings reveal a significant association between psychological safety levels and perceptions of the SSC. Increased psychological safety was linked to more positive views on the checklist's role in enhancing interdisciplinary teamwork, creating structure and attentiveness among colleagues. While seeing the checklist as time-consuming was associated with a lower psychological safety rating. These results suggest that psychological safety influences how individuals view and engage with patient safety measures like the checklist, highlighting the importance of fostering a supportive environment to optimise safety practice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".