麻醉检查表:依从性和态度调查

Andrew O’Donoghue, S. Mannion
{"title":"麻醉检查表:依从性和态度调查","authors":"Andrew O’Donoghue, S. Mannion","doi":"10.22038/PSJ.2020.48968.1275","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: While anesthesia is regarded as one of the safest clinical specialties, continuing to ensure patient safety requires vigilance. The growing complexity of modern medicine makes it extremely dangerous to rely on the absence of human error. There is evidence to suggest that anesthesiologists are less inclined to use checklists than surgeons and nurses. Seniority has also been shown to dictate the acceptance of checklists. Materials and Methods: We assessed compliance with, and attitudes to an anesthesia checklist, comparing by seniority. 1. Analysed a representative sample (n=247, 95% CI, 5% ME) of general anesthesia cases performed in one year (n=747), calculating percentage compliance in each case. We compared groups by seniority with Mann-Whitney U testing using SPSS. 2. We assessed attitudes using a 20-item questionnaire, consisting of five themed sub-scales. Descriptive statistics were generated. Results: Mean total compliance with the checklist was 91.6% (95% CI: 90.6-92.6%). Non-Consultant compliance was estimated at 94.4% (95% CI: 93.0-95.8%), compared to 91.6% (95% CI: 89.5-93.7%) in the Consultant group. Higher Non-Consultant compliance was significant, compared to the Consultant group (P=0.045). Conclusion: The Non-Consultant group demonstrated greater compliance. Attitudes to the checklist were similar amongst the two groups with lack of time and lack of training cited as two major barriers to use. Both senior and junior anesthesiologists felt it had a positive impact on patient safety.","PeriodicalId":16681,"journal":{"name":"Journal of patient safety and quality improvement","volume":"35 1","pages":"69-76"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Anesthesia Checklist: A Survey of Compliance and Attitudes\",\"authors\":\"Andrew O’Donoghue, S. Mannion\",\"doi\":\"10.22038/PSJ.2020.48968.1275\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: While anesthesia is regarded as one of the safest clinical specialties, continuing to ensure patient safety requires vigilance. The growing complexity of modern medicine makes it extremely dangerous to rely on the absence of human error. There is evidence to suggest that anesthesiologists are less inclined to use checklists than surgeons and nurses. Seniority has also been shown to dictate the acceptance of checklists. Materials and Methods: We assessed compliance with, and attitudes to an anesthesia checklist, comparing by seniority. 1. Analysed a representative sample (n=247, 95% CI, 5% ME) of general anesthesia cases performed in one year (n=747), calculating percentage compliance in each case. We compared groups by seniority with Mann-Whitney U testing using SPSS. 2. We assessed attitudes using a 20-item questionnaire, consisting of five themed sub-scales. Descriptive statistics were generated. Results: Mean total compliance with the checklist was 91.6% (95% CI: 90.6-92.6%). Non-Consultant compliance was estimated at 94.4% (95% CI: 93.0-95.8%), compared to 91.6% (95% CI: 89.5-93.7%) in the Consultant group. Higher Non-Consultant compliance was significant, compared to the Consultant group (P=0.045). Conclusion: The Non-Consultant group demonstrated greater compliance. Attitudes to the checklist were similar amongst the two groups with lack of time and lack of training cited as two major barriers to use. Both senior and junior anesthesiologists felt it had a positive impact on patient safety.\",\"PeriodicalId\":16681,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of patient safety and quality improvement\",\"volume\":\"35 1\",\"pages\":\"69-76\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-04-01\",\"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.2020.48968.1275\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of patient safety and quality improvement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22038/PSJ.2020.48968.1275","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

虽然麻醉被认为是最安全的临床专业之一,但继续确保患者的安全需要警惕。现代医学日益复杂,依靠无人为失误是极其危险的。有证据表明麻醉师比外科医生和护士更不倾向于使用检查表。资历也被证明决定了核对表的接受程度。材料和方法:我们评估了对麻醉检查表的依从性和态度,并按年龄进行比较。1. 分析一年内全麻病例的代表性样本(n=247, 95% CI, 5% ME) (n=747),计算每个病例的依从性百分比。采用SPSS统计软件Mann-Whitney U检验,按年资进行组间比较。2. 我们使用20项问卷来评估态度,包括5个主题子量表。生成描述性统计数据。结果:检查表的平均总依从性为91.6% (95% CI: 90.6-92.6%)。非顾问依从性估计为94.4% (95% CI: 93.0-95.8%),而顾问组为91.6% (95% CI: 89.5-93.7%)。与顾问组相比,非顾问组的依从性更高(P=0.045)。结论:非顾问组表现出更高的依从性。两组对清单的态度相似,缺乏时间和缺乏培训被认为是使用清单的两个主要障碍。高级麻醉师和初级麻醉师都认为这对患者安全有积极的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
An Anesthesia Checklist: A Survey of Compliance and Attitudes
Introduction: While anesthesia is regarded as one of the safest clinical specialties, continuing to ensure patient safety requires vigilance. The growing complexity of modern medicine makes it extremely dangerous to rely on the absence of human error. There is evidence to suggest that anesthesiologists are less inclined to use checklists than surgeons and nurses. Seniority has also been shown to dictate the acceptance of checklists. Materials and Methods: We assessed compliance with, and attitudes to an anesthesia checklist, comparing by seniority. 1. Analysed a representative sample (n=247, 95% CI, 5% ME) of general anesthesia cases performed in one year (n=747), calculating percentage compliance in each case. We compared groups by seniority with Mann-Whitney U testing using SPSS. 2. We assessed attitudes using a 20-item questionnaire, consisting of five themed sub-scales. Descriptive statistics were generated. Results: Mean total compliance with the checklist was 91.6% (95% CI: 90.6-92.6%). Non-Consultant compliance was estimated at 94.4% (95% CI: 93.0-95.8%), compared to 91.6% (95% CI: 89.5-93.7%) in the Consultant group. Higher Non-Consultant compliance was significant, compared to the Consultant group (P=0.045). Conclusion: The Non-Consultant group demonstrated greater compliance. Attitudes to the checklist were similar amongst the two groups with lack of time and lack of training cited as two major barriers to use. Both senior and junior anesthesiologists felt it had a positive impact on patient safety.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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