Surgical count and patient safety in the perspective of the operating room circulating nurse
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5327/10.5327/Z1414-4425201900010008Keywords:
Enfermagem Perioperatória, Segurança do Paciente, Pesquisa em enfermagem, Assistência de enfermagem.Abstract
Objective: To investigate the perspective of the operating room circulating nurse on surgical count for patient safety. Method: Qualitative exploratory
study, performed at the surgical center of a large hospital in the Northeast of Brazil, between January and March 2018. We carried out a Content
Analysis of the interviews conducted with 11 operating room circulating nurses using theoretical saturation. Results: The responses were organized in
two thematic categories – “Surgical count for patient safety” and “Flaws in the surgical count protocol” –, revealing the need to invest in practice change,
as most interviewees understood or acknowledged the importance of surgical count for patients. Conclusion: The relevance of surgical count is empirically
recognized and must be strengthened through actions that guarantee the understanding of the extent and impact of this practice on patient safety.
References
Mc Arthur A. Operating Room: Surgical Counts Surname. Evidence Summary. Australia: The Joanna Briggs Institute. 2016
Stawicki S, Moffatt-Bruce S, Ahmed H, Anderson H, Balija T, Bernescu I, et al. Retained surgical items: a problem yet to be solved. J Am Coll Surg [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2018 Jun 20]; 216(1): 15-22. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23041050 DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.08.026.
World Health Organization. World Alliance for Patient Safety. Implementation manual surgical safety checklist. WHO: Geneva; 2008 [cited 2018 Jun 25]. Available from: http://www.who.int/patientsafety/safesurgery/tools_resources/SSSL_Manual_finalJun08.pdf?ua=1
World Health Organization. WHO guidelines for safe surgery - Safe surgery saves lives. WHO: Geneva; 2009. [cited 2018 Jun 25]. Available from: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/44185/9789241598552_eng.pdf;jsessionid=F785D8684C05FBF825F6C7B183458C6A?sequence=1
Fontanella BJB, Luchesi BM, Saidel MGB, Ricas J, Turato ER, Melo DG. Amostragem em pesquisas qualitativas: proposta de procedimentos para constatar saturação teórica. Cad Saúde Pub [Internet]. 2011[cited 2018 Jun 20]; 27(2):389-394. Available from: http://www.scielo.br/pdf/csp/v27n2/20.pdf DOI: 10.1590/S0102-311X2011000200020
Bardin L. Análise de Conteúdo. 1.ed. Brasil: Ed 70; 2011, 280pp.
Caregnato RCA, Mutti R. Qualitative research: discourse analysis versus content analysis. Texto Contexto-Enferm [Internet]. 2006 [cited 2018 Jun 20]; 15(4): 679-84. Disponível em: http://www.scielo.br/pdf/tce/v15n4/v15n4a17.pdf DOI: 10.1590/S0104-07072006000400017
Ollaik LG, Ziller HM. Concepções de validade em pesquisas qualitativas. Educ Pesq [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2018 Jun 20]; 38(1):229-241. Available from: http://www.scielo.br/pdf/ep/v38n1/ep448.pdf DOI: 10.1590/S1517-97022012005000002.
Freitas PS, Mendes KDS, Galvão CM. Surgical count process: evidence for patient safety. Rev Gaúcha Enferm [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2018 Jun 20]; 37(4):e66877. Available from: http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rgenf/v37n4/0102-6933-rgenf-1983-144720160466877.pdf DOI: 10.1590/1983-1447.2016.04.66877
Wan W, Le T, Riskin L, Macario A. Improving safety in the operating room: A systematic literature review of retained surgical sponges. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2018 Jun 20]; 22(2):207-214. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19390247 DOI: 10.1097/ACO.0b013e328324f82d.
Greenberg C, Diaz-Flores R, Lipsitz S, Regenbogen S, Mulholland L, Mearn F, et al. Bar-coding surgical sponges to improve safety: a randomized control trial. Ann Surg [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2018 Jun 20]; 247(4):612-6. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18362623 DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181656cd5.
Harihran D, Lobo DN. Retained surgical sponges, needles and instruments. Ann R Coll Surg Engl [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2018 Jun 20]; 95(2): 87–92. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4098594/ DOI: 10.1308/003588413X13511609957218
Gawande A, Studdert D, Orav E, Brennan T. Zinner M. Risk factors for retained instruments and sponges after surgery. N Engl J Med [Internet]. 2003 [cited 2018 Jun 20]. 348:229-235. Available from: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa021721 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa021721
Williams TL, Tung DK, Steelman VM, Chang PK, Szekendi MK. Retained surgical sponges: findings from incident reports and a cost-benefit analysis of radiofrequency technology. J Am Coll Surg [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2018 Jun 20]; 219(3):354-64. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25081938 DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2014.03.052.
Greenberg C, Regenbogen S, Lipsitz S, Diaz-Flores R, Gawande A. The frequency and significance of discrepancies in the surgical count. Ann Surg [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2018 Jun 20]; 248(2): 337-41. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18650646 DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318181c9a3.
Norton EK, Micheli AJ, Gedney J, Felkerson TM. A nurse-led approach to developing and implementing a collaborative count policy. AORN J [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2018 Jun 20]; 95(2):222-7. Available from: https://aornjournal.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1016/j.aorn.2011.11.009 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aorn.2011.11.009
Moffatt-Bruce SD, Cook CH, Steinberg SM, Stawicki SP. Risk factors for retained surgical items: a meta-analysis and proposed risk stratification system. J Surg Res [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2018 Jun 20]; 190(2):429-36. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24953990 DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2014.05.044.
Goldberg J, Feldman D. Implementing AORN recommended practices for prevention of retained surgical items. AORN J [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2018 Jun 20]; 95: 205-16. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22283912 DOI: 10.1016/j.aorn.2011.11.010.
Norton E, Martin C, Micheli A. Patients count on it: An initiative to reduce incorrect counts and prevent retained surgical items. AORN J [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2018 Jun 20]; 95(1): 109-121. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22201575 DOI: 10.1016/j.aorn.2011.06.007.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
By publishing in Revista SOBECC, authors retain the copyright of their article and agree to license their work using a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) International Public License, thus accepting the terms of this license. The CC BY 4.0 license allows others to distribute, remix, adapt, and create from the published article, even for commercial purposes, provided they give due credit to the creators of the work (authors of the article).
The authors grant to Revista SOBECC the right of first publication, to identify itself as the original publisher, and grant to the journal a non-exclusive license to use the work in the following ways: (1) to sell and/or distribute the article in hard copies and/or in electronic format; (2) to distribute parts and/or the entire article in order to promote the journal through the internet and other digital and printed media; (3) to record and reproduce the article in any format, including digital media.
With this license, authors can enter into separate contracts for non-exclusive distribution of the article (e.g., publishing in an institutional repository or as a book chapter), with acknowledgement of authorship and initial publication in Revista SOBECC. Authors are encouraged to publish and distribute their work online after publication in the Revista SOBECC, as this can increase the article's visibility and impact.
In line with the journal's policies, each published article will be assigned a CC BY 4.0 license, which will be visible on the abstract page and in the PDF of each article with the respective link to the license terms.
