Periprocedural checklist in the catheterisation laboratory is associated with decreased rate of treatment complications
Interventional cardiology and electrophysiology are disciplines with a growing number of complex procedures, which are exposed to the occurrence of many complications. To assess efficacy and legitimacy of the periprocedural checklist in prevention of cardiovascular adverse events, in elective patien...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Kardiologia polska 2015-01, Vol.73 (7), p.511-519 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 519 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 7 |
| container_start_page | 511 |
| container_title | Kardiologia polska |
| container_volume | 73 |
| creator | Hawranek, Michał Gąsior, Paweł M Buchta, Piotr Gierlotka, Marek Czapla, Krystyna Tajstra, Mateusz Pyka, Łukasz Lekston, Andrzej Poloński, Lech Gąsior, Mariusz |
| description | Interventional cardiology and electrophysiology are disciplines with a growing number of complex procedures, which are exposed to the occurrence of many complications.
To assess efficacy and legitimacy of the periprocedural checklist in prevention of cardiovascular adverse events, in elective patients undergoing invasive diagnostic and treatment.
A total of 2064 patients directed to treatment in the catheterisation laboratory between May 2011 to August 2012 were analysed. Patients who were hospitalised without invasive diagnostics and treatment were not included in the study. Patients were divided into two groups: a control group - 1011 patients with invasive diagnostics and treatment before introduction of periprocedural checklist; and an intervention group - 1053 patients with invasive diagnostics and treatment after introduction of periprocedural checklist. We analysed the studied groups, assessing adverse events associated with hospitalisation and performed procedures. We also conducted subjective evaluation of checklists by medical staff on the basis of a questionnaire.
Baseline characteristics between the studied groups were comparable except for a higher rate of stable coronary artery disease (50.7% vs. 39.6%, p £ 0.001) and electrophysiology procedures in the control group. Implementation of a checklist was favourable in cases of decreased adverse events (6.8% vs. 3.9%, p = 0.004) especially bleedings (2.3% vs. 0.3%, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis confirmed that lack of a periprocedural checklist during hospitalisation was an independent factor associated with a higher rate of adverse events (OR = 2.97, 95% CI 1.60-5.53, p = 0.001). Subjective evaluation of medical staff opinions showed that implementation of a checklist seems to be associated with improved communication skills, work organisation, prevention of the occurrence of medical errors, and reduced rate of complications associated with procedures.
Introduction of a periprocedural checklist was associated with significant reduction of adverse events among patients undergoing invasive procedures. It also showed a positive influence on team communication, and organisation and quality of treatment, according to the opinions of medical staff. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.5603/KP.a2015.0038 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>pubmed_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_5603_KP_a2015_0038</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>25733179</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c332t-32c0a34e672608273653fed222be68ed7c4a67c90b42b20ce9a8ce1884dca2ae3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kM1OwzAQBi0EoqVw5Ir8Ain2OomdI6r4E5XoAc6Rs9mohqSJbFdV3560BS67Gmn0HYaxWynmWS7U_dtqbkHIbC6EMmdsKk2hkxR0cc6mQgAkhVAwYVchfI1ocikv2QQyrZTUxZTtVuTd4Hukeutty3FN-N26ELnb8Lgmjna8cZSCja7f8NZWvbex93vuArch9OhspJrvXFzzmtCTDSOODvG-4XHk2NEmcuy7oXV4nAnX7KKxbaCb3z9jn0-PH4uXZPn-_Lp4WCaoFMREAQqrUso15MKAVnmmGqoBoKLcUK0xtbnGQlQpVCCQCmuQpDFpjRYsqRlLTrvo-xA8NeXgXWf9vpSiPAQs31blMWB5CDj6dyd_2FYd1f_2XzH1A7plbyA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Periprocedural checklist in the catheterisation laboratory is associated with decreased rate of treatment complications</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Hawranek, Michał ; Gąsior, Paweł M ; Buchta, Piotr ; Gierlotka, Marek ; Czapla, Krystyna ; Tajstra, Mateusz ; Pyka, Łukasz ; Lekston, Andrzej ; Poloński, Lech ; Gąsior, Mariusz</creator><creatorcontrib>Hawranek, Michał ; Gąsior, Paweł M ; Buchta, Piotr ; Gierlotka, Marek ; Czapla, Krystyna ; Tajstra, Mateusz ; Pyka, Łukasz ; Lekston, Andrzej ; Poloński, Lech ; Gąsior, Mariusz</creatorcontrib><description>Interventional cardiology and electrophysiology are disciplines with a growing number of complex procedures, which are exposed to the occurrence of many complications.
To assess efficacy and legitimacy of the periprocedural checklist in prevention of cardiovascular adverse events, in elective patients undergoing invasive diagnostic and treatment.
A total of 2064 patients directed to treatment in the catheterisation laboratory between May 2011 to August 2012 were analysed. Patients who were hospitalised without invasive diagnostics and treatment were not included in the study. Patients were divided into two groups: a control group - 1011 patients with invasive diagnostics and treatment before introduction of periprocedural checklist; and an intervention group - 1053 patients with invasive diagnostics and treatment after introduction of periprocedural checklist. We analysed the studied groups, assessing adverse events associated with hospitalisation and performed procedures. We also conducted subjective evaluation of checklists by medical staff on the basis of a questionnaire.
Baseline characteristics between the studied groups were comparable except for a higher rate of stable coronary artery disease (50.7% vs. 39.6%, p £ 0.001) and electrophysiology procedures in the control group. Implementation of a checklist was favourable in cases of decreased adverse events (6.8% vs. 3.9%, p = 0.004) especially bleedings (2.3% vs. 0.3%, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis confirmed that lack of a periprocedural checklist during hospitalisation was an independent factor associated with a higher rate of adverse events (OR = 2.97, 95% CI 1.60-5.53, p = 0.001). Subjective evaluation of medical staff opinions showed that implementation of a checklist seems to be associated with improved communication skills, work organisation, prevention of the occurrence of medical errors, and reduced rate of complications associated with procedures.
Introduction of a periprocedural checklist was associated with significant reduction of adverse events among patients undergoing invasive procedures. It also showed a positive influence on team communication, and organisation and quality of treatment, according to the opinions of medical staff.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-9032</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1897-4279</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.5603/KP.a2015.0038</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25733179</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Poland</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Catheterization - methods ; Catheterization - standards ; Checklist ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Poland ; Postoperative Complications - prevention & control ; Practice Guidelines as Topic ; Preoperative Care - methods ; Preoperative Care - standards ; Retrospective Studies ; Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><ispartof>Kardiologia polska, 2015-01, Vol.73 (7), p.511-519</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c332t-32c0a34e672608273653fed222be68ed7c4a67c90b42b20ce9a8ce1884dca2ae3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25733179$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hawranek, Michał</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gąsior, Paweł M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buchta, Piotr</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gierlotka, Marek</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Czapla, Krystyna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tajstra, Mateusz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pyka, Łukasz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lekston, Andrzej</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Poloński, Lech</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gąsior, Mariusz</creatorcontrib><title>Periprocedural checklist in the catheterisation laboratory is associated with decreased rate of treatment complications</title><title>Kardiologia polska</title><addtitle>Kardiol Pol</addtitle><description>Interventional cardiology and electrophysiology are disciplines with a growing number of complex procedures, which are exposed to the occurrence of many complications.
To assess efficacy and legitimacy of the periprocedural checklist in prevention of cardiovascular adverse events, in elective patients undergoing invasive diagnostic and treatment.
A total of 2064 patients directed to treatment in the catheterisation laboratory between May 2011 to August 2012 were analysed. Patients who were hospitalised without invasive diagnostics and treatment were not included in the study. Patients were divided into two groups: a control group - 1011 patients with invasive diagnostics and treatment before introduction of periprocedural checklist; and an intervention group - 1053 patients with invasive diagnostics and treatment after introduction of periprocedural checklist. We analysed the studied groups, assessing adverse events associated with hospitalisation and performed procedures. We also conducted subjective evaluation of checklists by medical staff on the basis of a questionnaire.
Baseline characteristics between the studied groups were comparable except for a higher rate of stable coronary artery disease (50.7% vs. 39.6%, p £ 0.001) and electrophysiology procedures in the control group. Implementation of a checklist was favourable in cases of decreased adverse events (6.8% vs. 3.9%, p = 0.004) especially bleedings (2.3% vs. 0.3%, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis confirmed that lack of a periprocedural checklist during hospitalisation was an independent factor associated with a higher rate of adverse events (OR = 2.97, 95% CI 1.60-5.53, p = 0.001). Subjective evaluation of medical staff opinions showed that implementation of a checklist seems to be associated with improved communication skills, work organisation, prevention of the occurrence of medical errors, and reduced rate of complications associated with procedures.
Introduction of a periprocedural checklist was associated with significant reduction of adverse events among patients undergoing invasive procedures. It also showed a positive influence on team communication, and organisation and quality of treatment, according to the opinions of medical staff.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Catheterization - methods</subject><subject>Catheterization - standards</subject><subject>Checklist</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Poland</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - prevention & control</subject><subject>Practice Guidelines as Topic</subject><subject>Preoperative Care - methods</subject><subject>Preoperative Care - standards</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><issn>0022-9032</issn><issn>1897-4279</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNo9kM1OwzAQBi0EoqVw5Ir8Ain2OomdI6r4E5XoAc6Rs9mohqSJbFdV3560BS67Gmn0HYaxWynmWS7U_dtqbkHIbC6EMmdsKk2hkxR0cc6mQgAkhVAwYVchfI1ocikv2QQyrZTUxZTtVuTd4Hukeutty3FN-N26ELnb8Lgmjna8cZSCja7f8NZWvbex93vuArch9OhspJrvXFzzmtCTDSOODvG-4XHk2NEmcuy7oXV4nAnX7KKxbaCb3z9jn0-PH4uXZPn-_Lp4WCaoFMREAQqrUso15MKAVnmmGqoBoKLcUK0xtbnGQlQpVCCQCmuQpDFpjRYsqRlLTrvo-xA8NeXgXWf9vpSiPAQs31blMWB5CDj6dyd_2FYd1f_2XzH1A7plbyA</recordid><startdate>20150101</startdate><enddate>20150101</enddate><creator>Hawranek, Michał</creator><creator>Gąsior, Paweł M</creator><creator>Buchta, Piotr</creator><creator>Gierlotka, Marek</creator><creator>Czapla, Krystyna</creator><creator>Tajstra, Mateusz</creator><creator>Pyka, Łukasz</creator><creator>Lekston, Andrzej</creator><creator>Poloński, Lech</creator><creator>Gąsior, Mariusz</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150101</creationdate><title>Periprocedural checklist in the catheterisation laboratory is associated with decreased rate of treatment complications</title><author>Hawranek, Michał ; Gąsior, Paweł M ; Buchta, Piotr ; Gierlotka, Marek ; Czapla, Krystyna ; Tajstra, Mateusz ; Pyka, Łukasz ; Lekston, Andrzej ; Poloński, Lech ; Gąsior, Mariusz</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c332t-32c0a34e672608273653fed222be68ed7c4a67c90b42b20ce9a8ce1884dca2ae3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Catheterization - methods</topic><topic>Catheterization - standards</topic><topic>Checklist</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Poland</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - prevention & control</topic><topic>Practice Guidelines as Topic</topic><topic>Preoperative Care - methods</topic><topic>Preoperative Care - standards</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hawranek, Michał</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gąsior, Paweł M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buchta, Piotr</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gierlotka, Marek</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Czapla, Krystyna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tajstra, Mateusz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pyka, Łukasz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lekston, Andrzej</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Poloński, Lech</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gąsior, Mariusz</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Kardiologia polska</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hawranek, Michał</au><au>Gąsior, Paweł M</au><au>Buchta, Piotr</au><au>Gierlotka, Marek</au><au>Czapla, Krystyna</au><au>Tajstra, Mateusz</au><au>Pyka, Łukasz</au><au>Lekston, Andrzej</au><au>Poloński, Lech</au><au>Gąsior, Mariusz</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Periprocedural checklist in the catheterisation laboratory is associated with decreased rate of treatment complications</atitle><jtitle>Kardiologia polska</jtitle><addtitle>Kardiol Pol</addtitle><date>2015-01-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>73</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>511</spage><epage>519</epage><pages>511-519</pages><issn>0022-9032</issn><eissn>1897-4279</eissn><abstract>Interventional cardiology and electrophysiology are disciplines with a growing number of complex procedures, which are exposed to the occurrence of many complications.
To assess efficacy and legitimacy of the periprocedural checklist in prevention of cardiovascular adverse events, in elective patients undergoing invasive diagnostic and treatment.
A total of 2064 patients directed to treatment in the catheterisation laboratory between May 2011 to August 2012 were analysed. Patients who were hospitalised without invasive diagnostics and treatment were not included in the study. Patients were divided into two groups: a control group - 1011 patients with invasive diagnostics and treatment before introduction of periprocedural checklist; and an intervention group - 1053 patients with invasive diagnostics and treatment after introduction of periprocedural checklist. We analysed the studied groups, assessing adverse events associated with hospitalisation and performed procedures. We also conducted subjective evaluation of checklists by medical staff on the basis of a questionnaire.
Baseline characteristics between the studied groups were comparable except for a higher rate of stable coronary artery disease (50.7% vs. 39.6%, p £ 0.001) and electrophysiology procedures in the control group. Implementation of a checklist was favourable in cases of decreased adverse events (6.8% vs. 3.9%, p = 0.004) especially bleedings (2.3% vs. 0.3%, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis confirmed that lack of a periprocedural checklist during hospitalisation was an independent factor associated with a higher rate of adverse events (OR = 2.97, 95% CI 1.60-5.53, p = 0.001). Subjective evaluation of medical staff opinions showed that implementation of a checklist seems to be associated with improved communication skills, work organisation, prevention of the occurrence of medical errors, and reduced rate of complications associated with procedures.
Introduction of a periprocedural checklist was associated with significant reduction of adverse events among patients undergoing invasive procedures. It also showed a positive influence on team communication, and organisation and quality of treatment, according to the opinions of medical staff.</abstract><cop>Poland</cop><pmid>25733179</pmid><doi>10.5603/KP.a2015.0038</doi><tpages>9</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0022-9032 |
| ispartof | Kardiologia polska, 2015-01, Vol.73 (7), p.511-519 |
| issn | 0022-9032 1897-4279 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_crossref_primary_10_5603_KP_a2015_0038 |
| source | MEDLINE; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals |
| subjects | Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over Catheterization - methods Catheterization - standards Checklist Female Humans Male Middle Aged Poland Postoperative Complications - prevention & control Practice Guidelines as Topic Preoperative Care - methods Preoperative Care - standards Retrospective Studies Surveys and Questionnaires |
| title | Periprocedural checklist in the catheterisation laboratory is associated with decreased rate of treatment complications |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T03%3A42%3A12IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-pubmed_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Periprocedural%20checklist%20in%20the%20catheterisation%20laboratory%20is%20associated%20with%20decreased%20rate%20of%20treatment%20complications&rft.jtitle=Kardiologia%20polska&rft.au=Hawranek,%20Micha%C5%82&rft.date=2015-01-01&rft.volume=73&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=511&rft.epage=519&rft.pages=511-519&rft.issn=0022-9032&rft.eissn=1897-4279&rft_id=info:doi/10.5603/KP.a2015.0038&rft_dat=%3Cpubmed_cross%3E25733179%3C/pubmed_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/25733179&rfr_iscdi=true |