Abstract
To examine the impact made on safe surgical practice by the introduction of correct site surgery documentation in a children’s hospital containing a surgical unit in South Yorkshire. A retrospective audit of randomly selected case notes of children attending the hospital for an ENT/Plastic surgery/Orthopaedic/General surgical procedure during a period in 2006 or 2008. Outcome measures included the total, correct and legible completion of correct site surgery documentation pre-operatively. Significant improvement was noted between the 2006 and 2008 audits in the amount of patients being correctly marked (33% vs. 91%), however there were no forms in either study that were fully and correctly completed. Legibility of the forms also improved markedly between the studies (33% vs. 98%). The completion of correct site surgery forms improved with greater publicisation of the forms, however the practicality of the numbers of people required to complete the forms needs to be reviewed. The international introduction of such forms will generate valuable data as to the future utility of these checklists.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Kwaan MR, Studdert D, Zinner M et al. Incidence patterns and prevention of wrong site surgery. Arch Surg 2006;141:353–358
Giles S, Rhodes P, Clements G et al. Experience of wrong site surgery and surgical marking practices among clinicians in the UK. Qual Saf Health Care 2006;15:363–368
Patient Safety Agency (NPSA). Patient Safety Alert 06: Correct site surgery. 2 Mar 2005. http://www.npsa.nhs.uk/site/media/documents/883_CSS%20PSA06%20FINAL.pdf
Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM et al. Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients: results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I. 1991. Qual Saf Health Care 2004;13(2):145–52
Department of Health. An organisation with a memory. London, UK: Crown 2000. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4065083
NHS Litigation Authority — Factsheet 3: information on claims. NHSLA Nov 2008. http://www.nhsla.com/NR/rdonlyres/C1B3F310-E13D-4C71-B248-C5384438E603/0/NHSLAFactsheetclaimsinformation200708.doc
World Health Organisation website. www.WHO.int/entity/patientsafety/safesurgery/knowledge_base/sssl_brochure_finaljun08
Haynes AB, Weiser TG et al, for the Safe Surgery Saves Lives study Group. A Surgical Safety Checklist to Reduce Morbidity and Mortality in a Global Population. NEJM 2009; 360(5):491–499
Foster M. Safety first, second and third. BMA news Sat May 9th 2009:9
Ballal MS, Shah N, Ballal M et al. The Risk of Cross-Infection when Marking Surgical Patients Prior to Surgery — Review of Two Types of Marking Pens. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2007;89(3):226–228
Catalier M. Patient safety task force addresses wrong site surgery. Arizona Nurse 2003: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3928/is_200311/ai_n9303404/pg_2/?tag=content;col1
’dd’. Surgical errors surprisingly common. GoingLegal.com 29th June 2007. http://www.goinglegal.com/article_178385_101.html
Lyons R, Payne C, McCabe M, Fielder C. Information in practice — Legibility of doctors’ handwriting: a quantitative comparative study. BMJ 1998;317:863–864
Berwick DM, Winickoff DE. The truth about doctors’ handwriting: a prospective study. BMJ 1996;313: 1657–1658
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
About this article
Cite this article
Owers, C., Lees, E. & Roberts, J. Correct site surgery — are we up to standard?. cent.eur.j.med 5, 407–410 (2010). https://doi.org/10.2478/s11536-010-0026-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/s11536-010-0026-5