Mixed methods study on the use of and attitudes towards safety checklists in interventional radiology

Zachary Munn, Kristy Giles, Edoardo Aromataris, Anita Deakin, Timothy Schultz, Catherine Mandel, Micah Dj Peters, Guy Maddern, Alan Pearson, William Runciman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction: The use of safety checklists in interventional radiology is an intervention aimed at reducing mortality and morbidity. Currently there is little known about their practical use in Australian radiology departments. The primary aim of this mixed methods study was to evaluate how safety checklists (SC) are used and completed in radiology departments within Australian hospitals, and attitudes towards their use as described by Australian radiologists. Methods: A mixed methods approach employing both quantitative and qualitative techniques was used for this study. Direct observations of checklist use during radiological procedures were performed to determine compliance. Medical records were also audited to investigate whether there was any discrepancy between practice (actual care measured by direct observation) and documentation (documented care measured by an audit of records). A focus group with Australian radiologists was conducted to determine attitudes towards the use of checklists. Results: Among the four participating radiology departments, overall observed mean completion of the components of the checklist was 38%. The checklist items most commonly observed to be addressed by the operating theatre staff as noted during observations were correct patient (80%) and procedure (60%). Findings from the direct observations conflicted with the medical record audit, where there was a higher percentage of completion (64% completion) in comparison to the 38% observed. The focus group participants spoke of barriers to the use of checklists, including the culture of radiology departments. Conclusion: This is the first study of safety checklist use in radiology within Australia. Overall completion was low across the sites included in this study. Compliance data collected from observations differed markedly from reported compliance in medical records. There remain significant barriers to the proper use of safety checklists in Australian radiology departments.

LanguageEnglish
Pages32-38
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology
Volume62
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Feb 2018

Keywords

  • Australia
  • checklist
  • interventional radiology
  • patient safety

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Munn, Zachary ; Giles, Kristy ; Aromataris, Edoardo ; Deakin, Anita ; Schultz, Timothy ; Mandel, Catherine ; Peters, Micah Dj ; Maddern, Guy ; Pearson, Alan ; Runciman, William. / Mixed methods study on the use of and attitudes towards safety checklists in interventional radiology. In: Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology. 2018 ; Vol. 62, No. 1. pp. 32-38.
@article{ee3c2728218c48b8b45c8c50eb353b3f,
title = "Mixed methods study on the use of and attitudes towards safety checklists in interventional radiology",
abstract = "Introduction: The use of safety checklists in interventional radiology is an intervention aimed at reducing mortality and morbidity. Currently there is little known about their practical use in Australian radiology departments. The primary aim of this mixed methods study was to evaluate how safety checklists (SC) are used and completed in radiology departments within Australian hospitals, and attitudes towards their use as described by Australian radiologists. Methods: A mixed methods approach employing both quantitative and qualitative techniques was used for this study. Direct observations of checklist use during radiological procedures were performed to determine compliance. Medical records were also audited to investigate whether there was any discrepancy between practice (actual care measured by direct observation) and documentation (documented care measured by an audit of records). A focus group with Australian radiologists was conducted to determine attitudes towards the use of checklists. Results: Among the four participating radiology departments, overall observed mean completion of the components of the checklist was 38{\%}. The checklist items most commonly observed to be addressed by the operating theatre staff as noted during observations were correct patient (80{\%}) and procedure (60{\%}). Findings from the direct observations conflicted with the medical record audit, where there was a higher percentage of completion (64{\%} completion) in comparison to the 38{\%} observed. The focus group participants spoke of barriers to the use of checklists, including the culture of radiology departments. Conclusion: This is the first study of safety checklist use in radiology within Australia. Overall completion was low across the sites included in this study. Compliance data collected from observations differed markedly from reported compliance in medical records. There remain significant barriers to the proper use of safety checklists in Australian radiology departments.",
keywords = "Australia, checklist, interventional radiology, patient safety",
author = "Zachary Munn and Kristy Giles and Edoardo Aromataris and Anita Deakin and Timothy Schultz and Catherine Mandel and Peters, {Micah Dj} and Guy Maddern and Alan Pearson and William Runciman",
year = "2018",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/1754-9485.12633",
language = "English",
volume = "62",
pages = "32--38",
journal = "Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology",
issn = "1754-9477",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd",
number = "1",

}

Munn, Z, Giles, K, Aromataris, E, Deakin, A, Schultz, T, Mandel, C, Peters, MD, Maddern, G, Pearson, A & Runciman, W 2018, 'Mixed methods study on the use of and attitudes towards safety checklists in interventional radiology', Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 32-38. https://doi.org/10.1111/1754-9485.12633

Mixed methods study on the use of and attitudes towards safety checklists in interventional radiology. / Munn, Zachary; Giles, Kristy; Aromataris, Edoardo; Deakin, Anita; Schultz, Timothy; Mandel, Catherine; Peters, Micah Dj; Maddern, Guy; Pearson, Alan; Runciman, William.

In: Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology, Vol. 62, No. 1, 01.02.2018, p. 32-38.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Mixed methods study on the use of and attitudes towards safety checklists in interventional radiology

AU - Munn, Zachary

AU - Giles, Kristy

AU - Aromataris, Edoardo

AU - Deakin, Anita

AU - Schultz, Timothy

AU - Mandel, Catherine

AU - Peters, Micah Dj

AU - Maddern, Guy

AU - Pearson, Alan

AU - Runciman, William

PY - 2018/2/1

Y1 - 2018/2/1

N2 - Introduction: The use of safety checklists in interventional radiology is an intervention aimed at reducing mortality and morbidity. Currently there is little known about their practical use in Australian radiology departments. The primary aim of this mixed methods study was to evaluate how safety checklists (SC) are used and completed in radiology departments within Australian hospitals, and attitudes towards their use as described by Australian radiologists. Methods: A mixed methods approach employing both quantitative and qualitative techniques was used for this study. Direct observations of checklist use during radiological procedures were performed to determine compliance. Medical records were also audited to investigate whether there was any discrepancy between practice (actual care measured by direct observation) and documentation (documented care measured by an audit of records). A focus group with Australian radiologists was conducted to determine attitudes towards the use of checklists. Results: Among the four participating radiology departments, overall observed mean completion of the components of the checklist was 38%. The checklist items most commonly observed to be addressed by the operating theatre staff as noted during observations were correct patient (80%) and procedure (60%). Findings from the direct observations conflicted with the medical record audit, where there was a higher percentage of completion (64% completion) in comparison to the 38% observed. The focus group participants spoke of barriers to the use of checklists, including the culture of radiology departments. Conclusion: This is the first study of safety checklist use in radiology within Australia. Overall completion was low across the sites included in this study. Compliance data collected from observations differed markedly from reported compliance in medical records. There remain significant barriers to the proper use of safety checklists in Australian radiology departments.

AB - Introduction: The use of safety checklists in interventional radiology is an intervention aimed at reducing mortality and morbidity. Currently there is little known about their practical use in Australian radiology departments. The primary aim of this mixed methods study was to evaluate how safety checklists (SC) are used and completed in radiology departments within Australian hospitals, and attitudes towards their use as described by Australian radiologists. Methods: A mixed methods approach employing both quantitative and qualitative techniques was used for this study. Direct observations of checklist use during radiological procedures were performed to determine compliance. Medical records were also audited to investigate whether there was any discrepancy between practice (actual care measured by direct observation) and documentation (documented care measured by an audit of records). A focus group with Australian radiologists was conducted to determine attitudes towards the use of checklists. Results: Among the four participating radiology departments, overall observed mean completion of the components of the checklist was 38%. The checklist items most commonly observed to be addressed by the operating theatre staff as noted during observations were correct patient (80%) and procedure (60%). Findings from the direct observations conflicted with the medical record audit, where there was a higher percentage of completion (64% completion) in comparison to the 38% observed. The focus group participants spoke of barriers to the use of checklists, including the culture of radiology departments. Conclusion: This is the first study of safety checklist use in radiology within Australia. Overall completion was low across the sites included in this study. Compliance data collected from observations differed markedly from reported compliance in medical records. There remain significant barriers to the proper use of safety checklists in Australian radiology departments.

KW - Australia

KW - checklist

KW - interventional radiology

KW - patient safety

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85020481021&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/1754-9485.12633

DO - 10.1111/1754-9485.12633

M3 - Article

VL - 62

SP - 32

EP - 38

JO - Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology

T2 - Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology

JF - Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology

SN - 1754-9477

IS - 1

ER -