MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412493640 · doi:10.1007/s00464-025-11966-0

Does the Surgical Safety Checklist need a co-pilot? Comparing adherence in gynecological surgery through electronic medical records and OR Black Box video observations

2025· article· en· W4412493640 on OpenAlexaff
Kjestine Emilie Møller, Jette Led Sørensen‎, Susanne Rosthøj, Patricia Trbovich, Teodor Grantcharov, Jeanett Strandbygaard

Bibliographic record

VenueSurgical Endoscopy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Safety and Medication Errors
Canadian institutionsNorth York General HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersErik og Susanna Olesens Almenvelgørende Fond
KeywordsChecklistMedicinePatient safetyMedical recordObservational studyElectronic medical recordMedical emergencyFamily medicinePsychologySurgeryHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Despite clear evidence that the Surgical Safety Checklist improves patient safety, the way its use is reported in the literature varies significantly. Consequently, we must understand the alignment between reported use of the checklist and its actual application to identify discrepancies that could affect safety reporting accuracy, and ultimately, patient safety outcomes. The study aims to examine Surgical Safety Checklist adherence in a gynecological operating room based on video data and to compare the resulting findings with reported use in patient electronic medical records. METHOD: An observational study was conducted on elective gynecological surgeries in a single operating room equipped with an OR Black Box from August to October 2021 to assess checklist compliance, quality, and engagement. The checklist's reported use in patient electronic medical records was reviewed. RESULTS: Forty-five surgeries were assessed. The video observed compliance score for Sign-in and Time-out was 100%, but 80% for Sign-out. Engagement scores, i.e., percentage of people paused, varied during the three checklist phases, with an overall mean score of 76% (range 45-94%). Quality scores, i.e., percentage of checklist items completed, differed between video observed (47% (95% CI 43-50)) and electronic medical records reported (89% (95% CI 84-94)) use. CONCLUSIONS: OR Black Box video provides a unique opportunity to assess the actual use of the Surgical Safety Checklist, revealing valuable insights into how it was used. Data showed that the checklist was not used as intended. A discrepancy was found between the reported completion in the electronic medical records and its actual use as observed in the video, with the former showing a much higher completion rate. This large discrepancy highlights the need for further initiatives to improve checklist use and reporting.

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)0.088
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.088
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSurgical EndoscopySame topicPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsFrench-language works237,207