- 期刊
手術室醫護人員使用“病人安全辨識查檢表”半年與一年後之滿意度調查
Survey of Operating Room Staff Satisfaction with the Use of a Patient Identification Checklist after 6 and 12 Months
摘要
Background and Purpose: On March 1, 2004, we began using a ”patient identification checklist” to enhance the identification of patients and their surgical procedures. The objective of this study was to investigate the satisfaction of operating room staff members with the use of this patient identification checklist. Methods: We used a questionnaire on satisfaction to investigate the attitudes of staff members toward the goal of patient safety, the convenience of using the checklist, levels of observed patient satisfaction, and the importance of the checklist at 6 and 12months after it had been introduced. Results: The number of respondents for the first investigation was 107 (with a return rate of 89.2%), and was 97 for the second investigation (with a return rate of 80.8%). Wefound that people had greater overall satisfaction at 12 than at 6 months after the checklist had been introduced (88.6% vs. 70.7%, respectively). Orthopedic physicians had stronger positive attitudes toward patient satisfaction (p=0.0005) and a lighter workload (p=0.01). Conclusion: Except for checklist complexity and workload, we found that operating room staff members generally agreed that the use of the checklist improved patient safety by verifying the correct identity. The attitude survey provides valuable information for re-engineering our patient identification process in the future. We believe we can further decrease the complexity of the checklist and greatly enhance patient satisfaction.
並列摘要
Background and Purpose: On March 1, 2004, we began using a ”patient identification checklist” to enhance the identification of patients and their surgical procedures. The objective of this study was to investigate the satisfaction of operating room staff members with the use of this patient identification checklist. Methods: We used a questionnaire on satisfaction to investigate the attitudes of staff members toward the goal of patient safety, the convenience of using the checklist, levels of observed patient satisfaction, and the importance of the checklist at 6 and 12months after it had been introduced. Results: The number of respondents for the first investigation was 107 (with a return rate of 89.2%), and was 97 for the second investigation (with a return rate of 80.8%). Wefound that people had greater overall satisfaction at 12 than at 6 months after the checklist had been introduced (88.6% vs. 70.7%, respectively). Orthopedic physicians had stronger positive attitudes toward patient satisfaction (p=0.0005) and a lighter workload (p=0.01). Conclusion: Except for checklist complexity and workload, we found that operating room staff members generally agreed that the use of the checklist improved patient safety by verifying the correct identity. The attitude survey provides valuable information for re-engineering our patient identification process in the future. We believe we can further decrease the complexity of the checklist and greatly enhance patient satisfaction.