Patients exposed to a surgical safety checklist experience better postoperative outcomes, but this could simply reflect wider quality of care in hospitals where checklist use is routine.

The well-established Institute of Medicine report entitled To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System highlighted the importance of preventative errors in medicine, suggesting interruptions are a contributing factor. Patient safety organisations, such as The Joint Commission, acknowledge that interruptions contribute to preventable medical errors. The aim of this research is to examine the most frequently observed interruptions experienced by nurses administering medications and evaluate an intervention designed to reduce those interruptions. The primary intervention consisted of a White Vest worn during administration stating: ‘Please do not interrupt while passing medications’. A quasi-experimental design was employed. Nurses were observed for 2 weeks during routine administration of morning medications. The vest was then introduced and worn during administration for 2 weeks for post-intervention data collection. The hospital unit, date, time, duration, and description of the interruption were recorded. Data collection was conducted in four hospital units sequentially. A content analysis revealed the most frequently observed interruptions were comments/questions by hospital staff, phone calls, and seeking supplies. As hypothesised, the overall number of interruptions during medication administration (MA) declined after implementation of the intervention. This study illustrates implications and policy changes with regards to nursing practices and MA.

Background The Clavien–Dindo classification is perhaps the most widely used approach for reporting postoperative complications in clinical trials. This system classifies complication severity by the treatment provided. However, it is unclear whether the Clavien–Dindo system can be used internationally in studies across differing healthcare systems in high‐ (HICs) and low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs). Methods This was a secondary analysis of the International Surgical Outcomes Study (ISOS), a prospective observational cohort study of elective surgery in adults. Data collection occurred over a 7‐day period. Severity of complications was graded using Clavien–Dindo and the simpler ISOS grading (mild, moderate or severe, based on guided investigator judgement). Severity grading was compared using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Data are presented as frequencies and ICC values (with 95 per cent c.i.). The analysis was stratified by income status of the country, comparing HICs with LMICs. Results A total of 44 814 patients were recruited from 474 hospitals in 27 countries (19 HICs and 8 LMICs). Some 7508 patients (16·8 per cent) experienced at least one postoperative complication, equivalent to 11 664 complications in total. Using the ISOS classification, 5504 of 11 664 complications (47·2 per cent) were graded as mild, 4244 (36·4 per cent) as moderate and 1916 (16·4 per cent) as severe. Using Clavien–Dindo, 6781 of 11 664 complications (58·1 per cent) were graded as I or II, 1740 (14·9 per cent) as III, 2408 (20·6 per cent) as IV and 735 (6·3 per cent) as V. Agreement between classification systems was poor overall (ICC 0·41, 95 per cent c.i. 0·20 to 0·55), and in LMICs (ICC 0·23, 0·05 to 0·38) and HICs (ICC 0·46, 0·25 to 0·59). Conclusion Caution is recommended when using a treatment approach to grade complications in global surgery studies, as this may introduce bias unintentionally.

No abstract