British journal of anaesthesia
-
The concept of using a checklist in surgical and anaesthetic practice was energized by publication of the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist in 2008. It was believed that by routinely checking common safety issues, and by better team communication and dynamics, perioperative morbidity and mortality could be improved. ⋯ However, introducing surgical checklists is not as straightforward as it seems, and requires leadership, flexibility, and teamwork in a different way to that which is currently practiced. Future work should be aimed at ensuring effective implementation of the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist, which will benefit our patients on a global scale.
-
Teamwork involves supporting others, solving conflicts, exchanging information, and co-ordinating activities. This article describes the results of interviews with anaesthetic assistants (n=22) and consultant anaesthetists (n=11), investigating the non-technical skills involved in the effective teamwork of the anaesthetic assistants in the operating theatre. Anaesthetic assistants most commonly saw themselves as either being part of a theatre team or an anaesthetic subgroup and most commonly described the senior theatre nurse as their team leader. ⋯ Of the 19 anaesthetic assistants who were asked if they would speak up if they disagreed with a decision in theatre, only 14 said that they would voice their concerns, and the most common approach was to ask for the logic behind the decision. The WHO checklist was described as prompting some anaesthetists to describe their anaesthetic plan to the anaesthetic assistant, when previously the anaesthetist would have failed to communicate their intentions in time for equipment to be prepared. The prioritization of activities to achieve co-ordination and the anaesthetic assistants becoming familiar with the idiosyncrasies of their regular anaesthetists were also described by anaesthetic assistants.
-
After recent UK policy developments, considerable attention has been focused upon how clinical specialties measure and report on the quality of care delivered to patients. Defining the right indicators alone is insufficient to close the feedback loop. This narrative review aims to describe and synthesize a diverse body of research relevant to the question of how information from quality indicators can be fed back and used effectively to improve care. ⋯ The dominant model for use of data within quality improvement is based upon the industrial process control approach, in which care processes are monitored continuously for process changes which are rapidly detectable for corrective action. From this review and experience of implementing these principles in practice, effective feedback from quality indicators is timely, credible, confidential, tailored to the recipient, and continuous. Considerable further work is needed to understand how information from quality indicators can be fed back in an effective way to clinicians and clinical units, in order to support revalidation and continuous improvement.
-
The decision of where to start a research project has been influenced by many factors over the years. Tradition has a large impact, but the individual researchers' or clinicians' personal interest has also played a major role. The pharmaceutical industries' interest has without doubt initiated and sponsored many projects in order to get new products onto the market. ⋯ One way of 'mapping' the evidence in order to find out what we know and what we do not know is the production of systematic reviews. Although systematic reviews are considered top of the evidence hierarchy, they are not flawless. The aim of this article is to explain the systematic review and point to some of the challenges in the development and use of systematic reviews.