Introduction Use of the WHO surgical safety checklist is consistently recognised to reduce harm caused by human error during the perioperative period. Inconsistent engagement is considered to contribute to persistence of surgical Never Events in the National Health Service. Most medical and nursing graduates will join teams responsible for the perioperative care of patients, therefore appropriate undergraduate surgical safety training is needed.
Aims To investigate UK medical and nursing undergraduate experience of the surgical safety checklist training.
Methods An eight-item electronic questionnaire was distributed electronically to 32 medical schools and 72 nursing schools. Analysis was conducted for the two cohorts, and responses from final year students were included.
Results 87/224 (38.8%) of medical students received teaching on the surgical safety checklist, compared with 380/711 (52.0%) of nursing students. 172/224 (76.8%) of medical students and 489/711 (66.9%) of nursing students understood its purpose and 8/224 (3.6%) medical students and 54/711 (7.4%) nursing students reported never being included in the Time Out. After adjusting for confounding factors, provision of formal teaching in checklist use increased understanding significantly (OR 50.39 (14.07 to 325.79, P<0.001)), as did routine student involvement in time outs (OR 5.72 (2.36 to 14.58, P<0.001)).
Discussion Knowledge of perioperative patient safety systems and the ability to participate in safety protocols are important skills that should be formally taught at the undergraduate level. Results of this study show that UK undergraduate surgical safety checklist training does not meet the minimum standards set by the WHO.
- patient safety
- medical education
- nursing education
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors CLSK contributed to the planning of the study, study design, distribution of survey questionnaires, collection of responses, analysis of data, literature review, writing the original article and subsequent revisions and production of figures. TOL contributed to planning of the study, study design, distribution of survey questionnaires, collection of responses and literature review. TMD contributed to analysis of data and statistical methodology. JEFF contributed to study design, writing the original draft and subsequent revisions, analysis of data and statistical methodology.
Competing interests JEFF is Honorary Clinical Advisor the Lifebox Foundation (http://www.lifebox.org/), an international charity working to make surgery safer in low- and middle-income countries. CLSKf has previously undertaken unpaid design work for the Lifebox Foundation.
Ethics approval HREC.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.