Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 4 Survey responses by perioperative staff role #

From: Introducing standardized “readbacks” to improve patient safety in surgery: a prospective survey in 92 providers at a public safety-net hospital

  Provider n = 44 Resident n = 30 Nursing Staff n = 18 P-value
Readbacks significantly reduce verbal communication errors and improve patient safety 5 (4–5) 4 (4–5) 5 (5–5) 0.01
Readbacks are currently being used appropriately by the surgical staff in our hospital 4 (3–4) 4 (3–4) 4 (3–5) 0.42
I would attend a short training module on readbacks 4 (4–5) 3 (2–4) 5 (5–5) <0.001
Readbacks would be helpful in reducing verbal communication errors when …
… a request is made to carry out an important task that has implications on safety of the patient 5 (4–5) 5 (4–5) 5 (5–5) 0.01
… there is a handoff of a surgical patient from the care of one provider to another 4 (4–5) 4 (4–5) 5 (5–5) 0.12
… used to count and verify surgical instruments and other items 5 (4–5) 4 (3–5) 5 (4–5) 0.08
… there are multiple perioperative tasks 5 (4–5) 4 (4–5) 5 (4–5) 0.41
Significant barriers to implementation of readbacks in the perioperative setting include …
… the lack of a general “safety culture” in the surgical department 2 (1–3) 2 (1–3) 3 (1–4) 0.14
… the availability of time to perform readback statements 4 (2–4) 4 (2–4) 5 (4–5) <0.001
… general reluctance of parts of the surgical team to use readbacks 3 (2.5-4) 3 (3–4) 4 (3–5) 0.04
… the amount of training for staff that will be needed to implement readbacks 3 (2–3) 2 (2–3) 3 (2–4) 0.15
… the difficulty in deciding what type of communication should constitute a readback 4 (2–4) 3 (2–4) 4 (3–5) 0.27
  1. #The “provider” group includes attending physicians and mid-level providers (CRNAs). The “resident” group refers to physicians in training, while “nursing staff” includes circulating nurses and scrub technicians. Data are shown as medians and interquartile ranges.