A patient safety checklist for the cardiac catheterisation laboratory

Heart ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 101 (2) ◽  
pp. 91-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
T J Cahill ◽  
S C Clarke ◽  
I A Simpson ◽  
R H Stables
Open Heart ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. e001260
Author(s):  
Kalaivani Mahadevan ◽  
Elena Cowan ◽  
Navneet Kalsi ◽  
Helena Bolam ◽  
Richard Arnett ◽  
...  

ObjectiveTo understand human factors (HF) contributing to disturbances during invasive cardiac procedures, including frequency and nature of distractions, and assessment of operator workload.MethodsSingle centre prospective observational evaluation of 194 cardiac procedures in three adult cardiac catheterisation laboratories over 6 weeks. A proforma including frequency, nature, magnitude and level of procedural risk at the time of each distraction/interruption was completed for each case. The primary operator completed a National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA) task load questionnaire rating mental/physical effort, level of frustration, time-urgency, and overall effort and performance.Results264 distractions occurred in 106 (55%) out of 194 procedures observed; 80% were not relevant to the case being undertaken; 14% were urgent including discussions of potential ST-elevation myocardial infarction requiring emergency angioplasty. In procedures where distractions were observed, frequency per case ranged from 1 to 16 (mean 2.5, SD ±2.2); 43 were documented during high-risk stages of the procedure. Operator rating of NASA task load parameters demonstrated higher levels of mental and physical workload and effort during cases in which distractions occurred.ConclusionsIn this first description of HF in adult cardiac catheter laboratories, we found that fewer than half of all procedures were completed without interruption/distraction. The majority were unnecessary and without relation to the case or list. We propose the introduction of a ‘sterile cockpit’ environment within catheter laboratories, as adapted from aviation and used in surgical operating theatres, to minimise non-emergent interruptions and disturbances, to improve operator conditions and overall patient safety.


2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 1082-1089 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen E. Hinsley ◽  
Audrey C. Marshall ◽  
Michelle H. Hurtig ◽  
Jason M. Thornton ◽  
Cheryl A. O’Connell ◽  
...  

AbstractBackgroundEvidence shows that the health of the work environment impacts staff satisfaction, interdisciplinary communication, and patient outcomes. Utilising the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses’ Healthy Work Environment standards, we developed a daily assessment tool.MethodsThe Relative Environment Assessment Lens (REAL) Indicator was developed using a consensus-based method to evaluate the health of the work environment and to identify opportunities for improvement from the front-line staff. A visual scale using images that resemble emoticons was linked with a written description of feelings about their work environment that day, with the highest number corresponding to the most positive experience. Face validity was established by seeking staff feedback and goals were set.ResultsOver 10 months, results from the REAL Indicator in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory indicated an overall good work environment. The goal of 80% of the respondents reporting their work environment to be “Great”, “Good”, or “Satisfactory” was met each month. During the same time frame, this goal was met four times in the cardiovascular operating room. On average, 72.7% of cardiovascular operating room respondents reported their work environment to be “Satisfactory” or better.ConclusionThe REAL Indicator has become a valuable tool in assessing the specific issues of the clinical area and identifying opportunities for improvement. Given the feasibility of and positive response to this tool in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory, it has been adopted in other patient-care areas where staff and leaders believe that they need to understand the health of the environment in a more specific and frequent time frame.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kalaivani Mahadevan ◽  
Elena Cowan ◽  
Navneet Kalsi ◽  
Helena Bolam ◽  
Geraint Morton ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (10) ◽  
pp. 961-967 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamed Khaldoun Badawy ◽  
Pradip Deb ◽  
Robert Chan ◽  
Omar Farouque

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document