Abstract
Background: The surgical safety checklist is widely used to improve the quality of perioperative care. However, clinicians continue to debate the clinical effectiveness of this tool. Methods: Prospective analysis of data from the International Surgical Outcomes Study (ISOS), an international observational study of elective in-patient surgery, accompanied by a systematic review and meta-analysis of published literature. The exposure was surgical safety checklist use. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and the secondary outcome was postoperative complications. In the ISOS cohort, a multivariable multi-level generalized linear model was used to test associations. To further contextualise these findings, we included the results from the ISOS cohort in a meta-analysis. Results are reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals. Results: We included 44 814 patients from 497 hospitals in 27 countries in the ISOS analysis. There were 40 245 (89.8%) patients exposed to the checklist, whilst 7508 (16.8%) sustained ≥1 postoperative complications and 207 (0.5%) died before hospital discharge. Checklist exposure was associated with reduced mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.49 (0.32–0.77); P<0.01], but no difference in complication rates [OR 1.02 (0.88–1.19); P=0.75]. In a systematic review, we screened 3732 records and identified 11 eligible studies of 453 292 patients including the ISOS cohort. Checklist exposure was associated with both reduced postoperative mortality [OR 0.75 (0.62–0.92); P<0.01; I2=87%] and reduced complication rates [OR 0.73 (0.61–0.88); P<0.01; I2=89%). Conclusions: Patients exposed to a surgical safety checklist experience better postoperative outcomes, but this could simply reflect wider quality of care in hospitals where checklist use is routine.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Journal | British Journal of Anaesthesia |
| Volume | 120 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| Pages (from-to) | 146-155 |
| Number of pages | 10 |
| ISSN | 0007-0912 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 01.01.2018 |
Funding
The ISOS study was funded through an unrestricted research grant from Nestle Health Sciences. T.E.F.A. is supported by a Medical Research Council/British Journal of Anaesthesia clinical research training fellowship. B.B. is funded by a National Research Foundation rating grant and an MRC (SA) self-initiated research grant. M.G. is a Chief Scientist Office (Scotland) NHS Research Scheme Clinician. R.P. is a UK National Institute for Health Research Professor. The ISOS study was funded through an unrestricted research grant from Nestle Health Sciences . T.E.F.A. is supported by a Medical Research Council /British Journal of Anaesthesia clinical research training fellowship. B.B. is funded by a National Research Foundation rating grant and an MRC (SA) self-initiated research grant. M.G. is a Chief Scientist Office (Scotland) NHS Research Scheme Clinician. R.P. is a UK National Institute for Health Research Professor.