The Modified Cappuccini Test: A Proxy Indicator For Patient Safety in The Operating Theatre

James A Morris, S. Mckeon, J. Super, R. Dyke, K. Reynolds, J. Hardman, R. Anakwe
{"title":"The Modified Cappuccini Test: A Proxy Indicator For Patient Safety in The Operating Theatre","authors":"James A Morris, S. Mckeon, J. Super, R. Dyke, K. Reynolds, J. Hardman, R. Anakwe","doi":"10.22038/PSJ.2020.44679.1257","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: \nWe report our experience with a modified audit tool, the modified Cappuccini test used to assess the availability and readiness of senior and expert help and supervision for trainee anaesthetists in the operating environment. \nMaterials and Methods: \nWe sought to provide assurance as to the level of supervision for surgical and anaesthetic trainees within our organisation, a large tertiary centre in an urban environment. We would expect this to have a direct impact on patient safety in the operative environment and also on the training experience. We modified the Cappuccini test so that it could be used for surgical and anaesthetic trainees .Over 11 days we visited operating theatres across our institution and interviewed 195 trainees (anaesthetists and surgeons) undertaking operating lists. \nResults: \n96 (49.2%) anaesthetic trainees and 99 (50.8%) surgical trainees were interviewed. 166 (85.1%) trainees were being directly supervised by a consultant. 29 (14.9%) trainees were being remotely supervised without a physical consultant presence16 (55.2%) of these were anaesthetic trainees and the remainder were surgical trainees2 (6.9%) trainees stated that they were unsure who was directly supervising them. For the 29 remotely supervised trainees, we contacted 19(65.5%) supervising consultants/senior doctors all of whom were aware that they were supervising the operating list and confirmed that they were available to attend if required. \nConclusion: \nThe modified Cappuccini test is a simple and helpful tool, providing assurance as to the level of and access to senior and skilled supervision in the operating theatre and with the potential to be modified and deployed in a number environments. We suggest that it is a useful proxy indicator of supervision and potentially also, patient safety in the operating theatre environment. We recommend that for operating lists which are remotely supervised, the name and method of contact for the senior supervising anaesthetist or surgeon should be explicitly stated at the beginning of each case.","PeriodicalId":16681,"journal":{"name":"Journal of patient safety and quality improvement","volume":"121 43","pages":"185-187"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of patient safety and quality improvement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22038/PSJ.2020.44679.1257","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: We report our experience with a modified audit tool, the modified Cappuccini test used to assess the availability and readiness of senior and expert help and supervision for trainee anaesthetists in the operating environment. Materials and Methods: We sought to provide assurance as to the level of supervision for surgical and anaesthetic trainees within our organisation, a large tertiary centre in an urban environment. We would expect this to have a direct impact on patient safety in the operative environment and also on the training experience. We modified the Cappuccini test so that it could be used for surgical and anaesthetic trainees .Over 11 days we visited operating theatres across our institution and interviewed 195 trainees (anaesthetists and surgeons) undertaking operating lists. Results: 96 (49.2%) anaesthetic trainees and 99 (50.8%) surgical trainees were interviewed. 166 (85.1%) trainees were being directly supervised by a consultant. 29 (14.9%) trainees were being remotely supervised without a physical consultant presence16 (55.2%) of these were anaesthetic trainees and the remainder were surgical trainees2 (6.9%) trainees stated that they were unsure who was directly supervising them. For the 29 remotely supervised trainees, we contacted 19(65.5%) supervising consultants/senior doctors all of whom were aware that they were supervising the operating list and confirmed that they were available to attend if required. Conclusion: The modified Cappuccini test is a simple and helpful tool, providing assurance as to the level of and access to senior and skilled supervision in the operating theatre and with the potential to be modified and deployed in a number environments. We suggest that it is a useful proxy indicator of supervision and potentially also, patient safety in the operating theatre environment. We recommend that for operating lists which are remotely supervised, the name and method of contact for the senior supervising anaesthetist or surgeon should be explicitly stated at the beginning of each case.
改良卡布奇尼试验:手术室患者安全的代理指标
简介:我们报告了我们使用改进的审计工具的经验,改进的卡普契尼测试用于评估高级和专家帮助的可用性和准备情况,以及对实习麻醉师在操作环境中的监督。材料和方法:我们试图为我们组织内的外科和麻醉培训生的监督水平提供保证,这是一个位于城市环境中的大型三级中心。我们希望这对手术环境中的患者安全以及培训经验有直接的影响。我们修改了卡普契尼测试,使其可以用于外科和麻醉师学员。在11天的时间里,我们访问了我们机构的手术室,采访了195名学员(麻醉师和外科医生),并列出了手术清单。结果:共访谈麻醉学员96人(49.2%),外科学员99人(50.8%)。166名(85.1%)学员由顾问直接督导。29名(14.9%)受训者在没有物理顾问在场的情况下接受远程监督;16名(55.2%)受训者为麻醉科受训者,其余为外科受训者;2名(6.9%)受训者表示不确定谁直接监督他们。对于29名远程督导的实习生,我们联系了19名(65.5%)督导顾问/资深医生,他们都知道他们在督导手术名单,并确认他们在需要时可以参加。结论:改进的卡普契尼试验是一种简单而有用的工具,为手术室高级和熟练的监督水平和获得提供了保证,并有可能在许多环境中进行改进和部署。我们认为这是一个有用的监督代理指标,也可能是手术室环境中患者安全的代理指标。我们建议,对于远程监督的手术名单,应在每个病例开始时明确说明高级监督麻醉师或外科医生的姓名和联系方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信