Home | About us | Editorial board
Search | Ahead of print | Current issue | Archives
Submit article | Instructions
Subscribe | Contacts | Login 
Print this page Email this page - Users Online: 19
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 2  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 41-46

Implementation of surgical safety checklist for all invasive procedures

1 Department of Quality, Fortis Escorts Heart Institute, New Delhi, India
2 Department of Cardiology, Fortis Hospital, New Delhi, India
3 Department of Medical Administration, Medanta - The Medicity, Gurgaon, Haryana, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Akanksha Patel
Department of Quality, Fortis Escorts Heart Institute, Okhla, New Delhi
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/2319-1880.174347

Rights and Permissions

Context: The purpose of this study was to analyze the implementation of the surgical safety checklist (SSCL) for all invasive procedures and compliance with the SSCL to determine further improvements. Aims: To implement the SSCL for all invasive procedures within 6 months and achieve 80% compliance. Settings and Design: Various invasive procedures selected that have comparatively risks of errors. Modified the SSCL based on essential requirements of the procedure. Materials and Methods: The implementation of the SSCL was observed for all identified invasive procedures. Checklists were piloted, rolled out, and monitored. Statistical Analysis Used: Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) and Pareto principle were used for implementing the SSCL and analyzing the hurdles for implementation. Results: During this exercise, the checklist for the various invasive procedures was finalized after a brainstorming sessions with various stakeholders. All the checklists were developed with the help of the World Health Organization (WHO) surgical safety principle between March 2013 and May 2013. Sensitization and training for the checklist were done among all relevant staff. All the checklists were piloted for June 2013 and the compliance of checklist usage was monitored. The sample for audit was decided. The rates of compliance for various procedures during the pilot phase of the study were 50% for dental extractions, 60% for cataract surgeries, 35% for endoscopy, 20% for cystoscopy, 40% for cardiac catheterization procedures, and 0% for bronchoscopy procedures. Compliance reviewed and changes made based on feedback received from users for checklist finalization. After the intervention, compliance monitoring for the same sample size at a defined frequency is done and shared with relevant stakeholders when required. Conclusions: Implementation needs constant monitoring, retraining, and reinforcement until it becomes self-evident and accepted.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded1308    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal