Based on currently available evidence, most methods of skills assessment are valid for feedback or measuring progress of training, but few can be used for examination or credentialing. The purpose of the assessment determines the choice of method.

Background The use of checklists is a promising strategy for improving patient safety in all types of surgical processes inside and outside the operating room. This article aims to provide requirements and implementation of checklists for surgical processes. Methods The literature on checklist use in the operating room was reviewed based on research using Medline, Pubmed, and Google Scholar. Although all the studies showed positive effects and important benefits such as improved team cohesion, improved awareness of safety issues, and reduction of errors, their number still is limited. The motivation of team members is considered essential for compliance. Currently, no general guidelines exist for checklist design in the surgical field. Based on the authors' experiences and on guidelines used in the aviation industry, requirements for the checklist design are proposed. The design depends on the checklist purpose, philosophy, and method chosen. The methods consist of the ''call-doresponse'' approach,'' the ''do-verify'' approach, or a combination of both. The advantages and disadvantages of paper versus electronic solutions are discussed. Furthermore, a step-by-step strategy of how to implement a checklist in the clinical situation is suggested. ConclusionsThe use of structured checklists in surgical processes is most likely to be effective because it standardizes human performance and ensures that procedures are followed correctly instead of relying on human memory alone. Several studies present promising and positive first results, providing a solid basis for further investigation. Future research should focus on the effect of various checklist designs and strategies to ensure maximal compliance.

Background: This study was designed to investigate the incidence of technical equipment problems during laparoscopic procedures. Methods: A video-capturing system was used, consisting of an analog video recorder with three camera image inputs and a microphone. Problems with all technical equipment used by the surgical team, such as the insufflator, diathermy apparatus, monitors, light source, camera and camera unit, endoscope, suction devices, and instruments, were registered. Results: In total, 30 procedures were randomly videotaped. In 87% (26/30) of the procedures, one or more incidents with technical equipment (49 incidents) or instruments (9 incidents) occurred. In 22 of those incidents (45%) the technical equipment was not correctly positioned or not present at all; in the other 27 (55%), the equipment malfunctioned as a result of a faulty connection (9), a defect (5), or the wrong setting of the equipment (3). In 10 (20%) cases the exact cause of equipment malfunctioning was unclear.Conclusions: The incidence of problems with laparoscopic technical equipment is high. To prevent such problems, improvement and standardization of equipment is needed, combined with the incorporation of checklist use before the start of a surgical procedure. Future research should be aimed at development, implementation, and evaluation of these measures into the operating room.