Interprofessional checklist briefings reduced the number of communication failures and promoted proactive and collaborative team communication.

Prophylactic administration of antibiotics can decrease postoperative morbidity, shorten hospitalization, and reduce the overall costs attributable to infections. Principles of prophylaxis include providing effective levels of antibiotics in the decisive interval, and, in most instances, limiting the course to intraoperative coverage only. Use in The National Research Council clean contaminated operations is appropriate and, in many instances, has been proven beneficial. Antibiotic prophylaxis is also indicated for clean operations, such as those involved with insertion of prosthetic devices, that are associated with low infection risk and high morbidity. Extension of antibiotic prophylaxis to other categories of clean wounds should be limited to patients with two or more risk factors established by criteria in the study of the efficacy of nosocomial infection control (SENIC) because the baseline infection rate in these patients is high enough to justify their use. Cefazolin (or cefoxitin when anaerobic coverage is necessary) remains the mainstay of prophylactic therapy. Selection of an alternate agent should be based on specific contraindications, local infection control surveillance data, and the results of clinical trials. Newer criteria for determining the risk of "site infection" (wound and intracavitary) are in evolution and may lead to modification of these recommendations over the next several years.

Background: Pilot studies of complex interventions such as a team checklist are an essential precursor to evaluating how these interventions affect quality and safety of care. We conducted a pilot implementation of a preoperative team communication checklist. The objectives of the study were to assess the feasibility of the checklist (that is, team members' willingness and ability to incorporate it into their work processes); to describe how the checklist tool was used by operating room (OR) teams; and to describe perceived functions of the checklist discussions. Methods: A checklist prototype was developed and OR team members were asked to implement it before 18 surgical procedures. A research assistant was present to prompt the participants, if necessary, to initiate each checklist discussion. Trained observers recorded ethnographic field notes and 11 brief feedback interviews were conducted. Observation and interview data were analyzed for trends. Results: The checklist was implemented by the OR team in all 18 study cases. The rate of team participation was 100% (33 vascular surgery team members). The checklist discussions lasted 1-6 minutes (mean 3.5) and most commonly took place in the OR before the patient's arrival. Perceived functions of the checklist discussions included provision of detailed case related information, confirmation of details, articulation of concerns or ambiguities, team building, education, and decision making. Participants consistently valued the checklist discussions. The most significant barrier to undertaking the team checklist was variability in team members' preoperative workflow patterns, which sometimes presented a challenge to bringing the entire team together. Conclusions: The preoperative team checklist shows promise as a feasible and efficient tool that promotes information exchange and team cohesion. Further research is needed to determine the sustainability and generalizability of the checklist intervention, to fully integrate the checklist routine into workflow patterns, and to measure its impact on patient safety.

US General Surgery residents are not universally ready to independently perform Core procedures by the time they complete residency training. Progressive resident autonomy is also limited. It is unknown if the amount of autonomy residents do achieve is sufficient to ensure readiness for the entire spectrum of independent practice.

No abstract

All clinicians take on leadership responsibilities when delivering care. Evidence suggests that effective clinical leadership yields superior clinical outcomes. However, few residency programs systematically teach all residents how to lead, and many clinicians are inadequately prepared to meet their day-to-day clinical leadership responsibilities. The purpose of this article is twofold: first, to make the case for the need to refocus residency education around the development of outstanding "frontline" clinical leaders and, second, to provide an evidence-based framework for designing formal leadership development programs for residents. The authors first present a definition of clinical leadership and highlight evidence that effective frontline clinical leadership improves both clinical outcomes and satisfaction for patients and providers. The authors then discuss the health care "leadership gap" and describe barriers to implementing leadership development training in health care. Next, they present evidence that leaders are not just "born" but, rather, can be "made," and offer a set of best practices to facilitate the design of leadership development programs. Finally, the authors suggest approaches to mitigating barriers to implementing leadership development programs and highlight the major reasons why health care delivery organizations, residency programs, and national accreditation bodies must make comprehensive leadership education an explicit goal of residency training.

Several antibiotics have been marketed for therapeutic use in intra-abdominal infection. Often, these agents do not provide a sufficient spectrum activity against both facultative and obligate anaerobic gram-negative organisms, or have certain toxic effects that would not otherwise support their use. Guidelines have been developed for selection of antibiotic therapy for intra-abdominal infections and are presented as a statement of the Surgical Infection Society endorsed by the Executive Council. These guidelines are restricted to infections derived from the gastrointestinal tract and deal with those microorganisms commonly seen in such infections. The recommendations are based on in vitro activity against enteric bacteria, experience in animal models, and documented efficacy in clinical trials. Other concerns regarding pharmacokinetics, mechanisms of action, microbial resistance, and safety were also used in the formation of these guidelines. For community-acquired infections of mild to moderate severity, single-agent therapy with cefoxitin, cefotetan, or cefmetazole or ticarcillin-clavulanic acid is recommended. For more severe infections, single-agent therapy with carbapenems (imipenem/cilastatin) or combination therapy with either a third-generation cephalosporin, a monobactam (aztreonam), or an aminoglycoside plus clindamycin or metronidazole is recommended. Regimens with little or no activity against facultative gram-negative rods or anaerobic gram-negative rods are not considered acceptable.

These results demonstrate statistical equivalence between CIP/MTZ IV and IMI IV in both the intent-to-treat and valid populations. Conversion to oral therapy with CIP/MTZ appears as effective as continued intravenous therapy in patients able to tolerate oral feedings.