Ameliyathane ve cerrahi servis çalışanlarının DSÖ Güvenli Cerrahi Kontrol Listesine ilişkin düşünceleri

Öz

Amaç: Bu araştırmanın amacı, ameliyathane ve cerrahi servis çalışanlarının DSÖ Güvenli Cerrahi Kontrol Listesine ilişkin düşüncelerini belirlemektir.

Materyal ve Metot: Bu çalışma tanımlayıcı bir anket çalışmasıdır. Anket formu cinsiyet, yaş, meslek, çalışma deneyimi gibi soruları içermektedir. Çalışanlar, 5’li likert ölçek ile, Güvenli Cerrahi Kontrol Listesindeki her bir maddenin önemini değerlendirmişler ve açık uçlu sorular aracılığıyla listeye ilişkin yorumlarda bulunmuşlardır. Araştırmacılar verileri, Aralık 2017- Ocak 2018 tarihlerinde hastaneyi ziyaret ederek toplamışlardır. Örneklem grubunu, Türkiye’nin batısında yer alan bir üniversite hastanesinde görev yapan 27 cerrah, 34 anestezist, 19 ameliyathane hemşiresi ve 38 cerrahi servis hemşiresi oluşturmuştur. Elde edilen veriler SPSS 18.0 paket programı ile yüzdelik, sıklık, ortalama ve standart sapma kullanılarak değerlendirilmiştir. Bu araştırma X Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Girişimsel Olmayan Araştırmalar Etik Kurulu tarafından onaylanmıştır. (No: 2017/128/12/16)

Bulgular: Örneklem grubunun %61’i kadın, %47’si 30 yaşın altında, % 83.1’i 1 yıldan fazla mesleki deneyime sahiptir. Maddelerin önem derecelerinin ortalamaları 4.25 ile 4.79 arasında değişmektedir. ’Hastanın kimlik bilgilerinin, ameliyatının ve bölgesinin doğrulanması’’ (4.79±0.50) ve ‘’hasta aç mı’’ (4.76±0.53) en önemli görülen maddeler olurken, ‘’Kan şekeri kontrolü gerekli mi?’’ (4.25±1.08)  ve ‘’Ekipteki kişiler kendilerini ad, soyad ve görevleri ile tanıttı mı?’’ (4.32±0.53) maddelerdi ise en önemsiz algılanan maddelerdi. Çalışanlar, ‘’Hastanın bilinen bir alerjisi var mı?  ve ‘’Derin ven trombozu ve antibiyotik profilaksisi sorgulandı mı?’’ maddelerinin listenin ‘’klinikten ayrılmadan önce’’ kısmında kontrol edilmesi önerdi. Ayrıca çalışanlar, lokal ve acil cerrahi girişimler için daha kısa bir kontrol listesinin oluşturulmasını ve kontrol listesi tamamlamadan ameliyatın başlamasını önleyecek chatbot’lar gibi yapay zeka ürünlerinin kullanılmasını önerdi.

Sonuç: Çalışanlar Güvenli Cerrahi Kontrol Listesinde yer alan tüm maddelerin önemli olduğunu düşünmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler:  hasta güvenliği, ameliyathane, cerrahi 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• hasta güvenliği,ameliyathane,cerrahi

Opinions of Operating Room and Surgical Ward Staff toward WHO Surgical Safety Checklist

Öz

Objective: This research is aimed at evaluating operating room and surgical ward staff’s opinions regarding the WHO surgical safety checklist.

Design: This was a descriptive, questionnaire study.

Material and Method: The questionnaire includes questions about gender, age, job role, and years of experience. Every item on the checklist was evaluated, and responders were permitted to provide freehand comments on the subject. The researchers visited a hospital and collected data from December 2017 - January 2018. The sample population includes 27 surgeons, 34 anaesthetists, and 19 operating room and 38 surgical ward nurses at a university hospital in western Turkey. The collected data were analysed using SPSS 18.0 with frequencies, percentages, mean, and standard deviation. This study was approved by the Ethical Committee of X University Medical Faculty, No: 2017/128/12/16.

Results: Of the sample population 61% were women, 47% were under 30 years old, and 83.1% had over 1 year of job experience. The mean score of item importance varied from 4.25 to 4.79. The items “patient's identity, procedure, operation site verification” (4.79±0.50) and “preoperative fasting” (4.76±0.53) had the highest scores. “Blood glucose control” (4.25±1.08) and “team members introduced” (4.32±0.53) had the lowest scores. It was suggested that “allergy” and “prophylaxis of antibiotic and deep vein thrombosis” be transferred to the “before the patients leave the ward” section. It was also suggested to add a compact checklist for local and emergency surgeries and employ artificial intelligence, like chatbots, to prevent surgery from starting before the checklist is completed.

Conclusion: All checklist items were considered necessary.

Keywords: patient safety, operating room, surgery

Anahtar Kelimeler

• patient safety,operating room,surgery

Kaynakça

1. Reference1.Mayer EK, Sevdalis N, Rout S, Caris J, Russ S, Mansell J et al. Surgical Checklist Implementation Project: The Impact of Variable WHO Checklist Compliance on Risk-adjusted Clinical Outcomes After National Implementation A Longitudinal Study. Annals of surgery. 2016; 263(1): 58-63. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001185
2. Reference2.Patel J, Ahmed K, Guru KA, Khan F, Marsh H, Khan MS et al. An overview of the use and implementation of checklists in surgical specialities–A systematic review. International Journal of Surgery. 2014; 12(12): 1317-1323. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.10.031
3. Reference3. Kwok AC, Funk LM, Baltaga R, Lipsitz SR, Merry AF, Dziekan G et al. Implementation of the World Health Organization surgical safety checklist, including introduction of pulse oximetry, in a resource-limited setting. Annals of surgery. 2013; 257(4): 633-639. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182777fa4
4. Reference4.Borchard A, Schwappach DL, Barbir A, & Bezzola P. A systematic review of the effectiveness, compliance, and critical factors for implementation of safety checklists in surgery. Annals of surgery.2012; 256(6): 925-933.DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182682f27
5. Reference5.Haugen AS, Søfteland E, Almeland SK, Sevdalis N, Vonen B, Eide GE et al. Effect of the World Health Organization checklist on patient outcomes: a stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial. Annals of surgery. 2015; 261(5): 821-828.DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000716
6. Reference6. Pugel AE, Simianu VV, Flum DR, & Dellinger EP. Use of the surgical safety checklist to improve communication and reduce complications. Journal of infection and public health. 2015; 8(3): 219-225.DOI: 10.1016/j.jiph.2015.01.001
7. Reference7. Levy SM, Senter CE, Hawkins RB, Zhao JY, Doody K, Kao LS et al. Implementing A Surgical Checklist: More Than Checking A Box. Surgery. 2012; 152 (3): 331-336. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2012.05.034
8. Reference8.Fourcade A, Blache JL, Grenier C, Bourgain JL, & Minvielle E. Barriers to staff adoption of a surgical safety checklist. BMJ Quality & Safety. 2011; bmjqs-2011: 1-7. DOI:10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000094

9. Reference9. Rydenfält C, Ek Å, & Larsson PA. Republished: Safety checklist compliance and a false sense of safety: new directions for research. Postgraduate Medical Journal. 2014; 90(1066): 446-449.DOI: 10.1136/postgradmedj-2013-002168rep
10. Reference10. Rydenfält C, Johansson G, Odenrick P, Åkerman K, Larsson PA. Compliance with the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist: deviations and possible improvements. International Journal for Quality in Health Care. 2013; 25(2):182-7. DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzt004
11. Reference11. Haugen AS, Murugesh S, Haaverstad R, Eide GE, & Søfteland E. A survey of surgical team members’ perceptions of near misses and attitudes towards Time Out protocols.BMC surgery.2013; 13(1): 46.DOI: 10.1186/1471-2482-13-46
12. Reference12.Helmiö P, Takala A, Aaltonen L M, Blomgren K. WHO Surgical Safety Checklist in Otorhinolaryngology-head and Neck Surgery: Specialty-Related Aspects of check items, Acta Oto-Laryngologica. 2012; 132: 1334-1341.DOI: 10.3109/00016489.2012.700121
13. Reference13.Birnbach DJ, Rosen LF, Fitzpatrick M, Paige JT, & Arheart KL. Introductions During Time-outs: Do Surgical Team Members Know One Another's Names?. Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety. 2017; 43(6): 284-288. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcjq.2017.03.001
14. Reference14. Nilsson L, Lindberget O, Gupta A, & Vegfors M. Implementing a pre-operative checklist to increase patient safety: a 1‐year follow‐up of personnel attitudes. Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. 2010; 54(2): 176-182. DOI: 10.1111/j.1399- 6576.2009.02109.x
15. Reference15.Biskup N, Workman AD, Kutzner E, Adetayo OA, & Gupta SC. Perioperative safety in plastic surgery: is the World Health Organization checklist useful in a broad practice?. Annals of plastic surgery. 2016; 76(5): 550-555. DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000000427
16. Reference16. Russ SJ, Sevdalis N, Moorthy K, Mayer EK, Rout S, Caris J et al. A qualitative evaluation of the barriers and facilitators toward implementation of the WHO surgical safety checklist across hospitals in England: lessons from the “Surgical Checklist Implementation Project”. Annals of surgery. 2015; 261(1): 81-91.DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000793
17. Reference17.Vats A, Vincent CA, Nagpal K, Davies RW, Darzi A, & Moorthy K. Practical challenges of introducing WHO surgical checklist: UK pilot experience. BMJ: British Medical Journal (Online). 2010; 340: 1-5. DOI:10.1136/bmj.b5433
18. Reference18.D'Alfonso S, Santesteban-Echarri O, Rice S, Wadley G, Lederman R, Miles C et al. Artificial intelligence-assisted online social therapy for youth mental health. Frontiers in psychology. 2017; 8: 796. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00796
19. Reference19.Crutzen R, Peters GJY, Portugal SD, Fisser EM, & Grolleman JJ. An artificially intelligent chat agent that answers adolescents' questions related to sex, drugs, and alcohol: an exploratory study. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2011; 48(5): 514-519. DOI: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.09.002
20. Reference20.Pauletto S, Balentine B, Pidcock C, Jones K, Bottaci L, Aretoulaki M et al. Exploring expressivity and emotion with artificial voice and speech technologies. Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology. 2013; 38(3): 115-125.DOI: 10.3109/14015439.2013.810303
21. Reference21. O’Connor P, Ryan S, & Keogh I. A comparison of the teamwork attitudes and knowledge of Irish surgeons and US Naval aviators. The surgeon. 2012; 10(5): 278-282. DOI: 10.1016/j.surge.2011.09.001
22. Reference22. O’Connor P, Reddin C, O’Sullivan M, O’Duffy F, & Keogh I. Surgical checklists: the human factor. Patient safety in surgery.2013; 7(1): 14.DOI: 10.1186/1754-9493-7-14