METHODS: Scoping Review.
OBJECTIVE: To review the literature and summarize information on checklists and algorithms for responding to intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) alerts and management of intraoperative spinal cord injuries (ISCIs).
METHODS: MEDLINE® was searched from inception through January 26, 2022 as were sources of grey literature. We attempted to obtain guidelines and/or consensus statements from the following sources: American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM), American Academy of Neurology (AAN), American Clinical Neurophysiology Society, NASS (North American Spine Society), and other spine surgery organizations.
RESULTS: Of 16 studies reporting on management strategies for ISCIs, two were publications of consensus meetings which were conducted according to the Delphi method and eight were retrospective cohort studies. The remaining six studies were narrative reviews that proposed intraoperative checklists and management strategies for IONM alerts. Of note, 56% of included studies focused only on patients undergoing spinal deformity surgery. Intraoperative considerations and measures taken in the event of an ISCI are divided and reported in three categories of i) Anesthesiologic, ii) Neurophysiological/Technical, and iii) Surgical management strategies.
CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of literature on comparative effectiveness and harms of management strategies in response to an IONM alert and possible ISCI. There is a pressing need to develop a standardized checklist and care pathway to avoid and minimize the risk of postoperative neurologic sequelae.

Preventable diagnostic errors are a large burden on healthcare. Cognitive reasoning tools, that is, tools that aim to improve clinical reasoning, are commonly suggested interventions. However, quantitative estimates of tool effectiveness have been aggregated over both workplace-oriented and educational-oriented tools, leaving the impact of workplace-oriented cognitive reasoning tools alone unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to estimate the effect of cognitive reasoning tools on improving diagnostic performance among medical professionals and students, and to identify factors associated with larger improvements.
Controlled experimental studies that assessed whether cognitive reasoning tools improved the diagnostic accuracy of individual medical students or professionals in a workplace setting were included. Embase.com, Medline ALL via Ovid, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Google Scholar were searched from inception to 15 October 2021, supplemented with handsearching. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model.
The literature search resulted in 4546 articles of which 29 studies with data from 2732 participants were included for meta-analysis. The pooled estimate showed considerable heterogeneity (I2=70%). This was reduced to I2=38% by removing three studies that offered training with the tool before the intervention effect was measured. After removing these studies, the pooled estimate indicated that cognitive reasoning tools led to a small improvement in diagnostic accuracy (Hedges\' g=0.20, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.29, p<0.001). There were no significant subgroup differences.
Cognitive reasoning tools resulted in small but clinically important improvements in diagnostic accuracy in medical students and professionals, although no factors could be distinguished that resulted in larger improvements. Cognitive reasoning tools could be routinely implemented to improve diagnosis in practice, but going forward, more large-scale studies and evaluations of these tools in practice are needed to determine how these tools can be effectively implemented.
CRD42020186994.

OBJECTIVE: In both elective surgeries and aviation, a reduction of complications can be expected by paying attention to the so-called human factors. Checklists are a well-known way to overcome some of these problems. We aimed to evaluate the current evidence regarding the use of checklists in implant dentistry.
METHODS: An electronic literature search was conducted in the following databases: CINHAL, Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library until March 2022. Based on the results and additional literature, a preliminary checklist for surgical implant therapy was designed.
RESULTS: Three publications dealing with dental implants and checklists were identified. One dealt with the use of a checklist in implant dentistry and was described as a quality assessment study. The remaining two studies offered suggestions for checklists based on literature research and expert opinion.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on our results, the evidence for the use of checklists in dental implantology is extremely low. Considering the great potential, it can be stated that there is a need to catch up. While creating a new implant checklist, we took care of meeting the criteria for high-quality checklists. Future controlled studies will help to place it on a broad foundation.
CONCLUSIONS: Checklists are a well-known way to prevent complications. They are especially established in aviation, but many surgical specialties and anesthesia adopt this successful concept. As implantology has become one of the fastest-growing areas of dentistry, it is imperative that checklists become an integral part of it.

To apply a human factors framework to understand whether checklists reduce clinical diagnostic error have (1) gaps in composition; and (2) components that may be more likely to reduce errors.
Systematic review.
PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science were searched through 15 February 2022.
Any article that included a clinical checklist aimed at improving the diagnostic process. Checklists were defined as any structured guide intended to elicit additional thinking regarding diagnosis.
Two authors independently reviewed and selected articles based on eligibility criteria. Each extracted unique checklist was independently characterised according to the well-established human factors framework: Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety 2.0 (SEIPS 2.0). If reported, checklist efficacy in reducing diagnostic error (eg, diagnostic accuracy, number of errors or any patient-related outcomes) was outlined. Risk of study bias was independently evaluated using standardised quality assessment tools in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.
A total of 30 articles containing 25 unique checklists were included. Checklists were characterised within the SEIPS 2.0 framework as follows: Work Systems subcomponents of Tasks (n=13), Persons (n=2) and Internal Environment (n=3); Processes subcomponents of Cognitive (n=20) and Social and Behavioural (n=2); and Outcomes subcomponents of Professional (n=2). Other subcomponents, such as External Environment or Patient outcomes, were not addressed. Fourteen checklists examined effect on diagnostic outcomes: seven demonstrated improvement, six were without improvement and one demonstrated mixed results. Importantly, Tasks-oriented studies more often demonstrated error reduction (n=5/7) than those addressing the Cognitive process (n=4/10).
Most diagnostic checklists incorporated few human factors components. Checklists addressing the SEIPS 2.0 Tasks subcomponent were more often associated with a reduction in diagnostic errors. Studies examining less explored subcomponents and emphasis on Tasks, rather than the Cognitive subcomponents, may be warranted to prevent diagnostic errors.

Despite being implemented for over a decade, literature describing how the surgical safety checklist (SSC) is completed by operating room (OR) teams and how this relates to its effectiveness is scarce. This systematic review aimed to: (1) quantify how many studies reported SSC completion versus described how the SSC was completed; (2) evaluate the impact of the SSC on provider outcomes (Communication, case Understanding, Safety Culture, CUSC), patient outcomes (complications, mortality rates) and moderators of these relationships.
A systematic literature search was conducted using Medline, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science on 10 January 2020. We included providers who treat human patients and completed any type of SSC in any OR or simulation centre. Statistical directional findings were extracted for provider and patient outcomes and key factors (eg, attentiveness) were used to determine moderating effects.
300 studies were included in the analysis comprising over 7 302 674 operations and 2 480 748 providers and patients. Thirty-eight per cent of studies provided at least some description of how the SSC was completed. Of the studies that described SSC completion, a clearer positive relationship was observed concerning the SSC\'s influence on provider outcomes (CUSC) compared with patient outcomes (complications and mortality), as well as related moderators.
There is a scarcity of research that examines how the SSC is completed and how this influences safety outcomes. Examining how a checklist is completed is critical for understanding why the checklist is successful in some instances and not others.

OBJECTIVE: In this article we report on the results of a survey of physics plan review practices conducted by the Cancer Care Ontario Communities of Practice and the variations in practice between and within centers.
METHODS: The medical physicists at each center worked together to complete the survey and submit a single response for that center. A 4-point Likert scale, used to report the variation in practice at each center, was quantified into two parameters: \"Intra-center variation\", the distribution of responses within the center, and \"Variation between centers\", the difference between the center\'s response and the provincial mean. These metrics were correlated with center characteristics to identify factors that impacted on variations in practice.
RESULTS: Bolus and heterogeneity correction were the only two items checked by all physicists in all centers. In more than half of the centers, image registration and DVH binning are not likely checked by physics. A significant difference in the variation between centers is observed for centers that used a single vendor\'s products. Centers that used an official checklist indicated higher levels and a wider range of Intra-center variation. Higher workload did not affect the variation in checking patterns between physicists in the same center.
CONCLUSIONS: The effect of a center\'s resources on their checking practice suggest that local environment and workflow be accounted for when implementing TG275 guidelines. The observation that standardized checklists did not reduce checking variability point to the importance of following the checklist development guidelines in MPPG4 to avoid ineffective checklists.

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to ascertain the impact of operating room (OR) to intensive care unit (ICU) handoff interventions on process-based and clinical outcomes.
We included all English language, prospective evaluation studies of OR to ICU handoff interventions published as original research articles in peer-reviewed journals. The search was conducted on 11 November 2019 on MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Scopus and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases, with no prespecified criteria for the type of comparison or outcome. A meta-analysis of similar outcomes was conducted using a random effects model. Quality was assessed using a modified Downs and Black (D&B) checklist.
32 studies were included for review. 31 studies were conducted at a single site and 28 studies used an observational study design with a control. Most studies (n=28) evaluated bundled interventions which comprised information transfer/communication checklists and protocols. Meta-analysis showed that the handoff intervention group had statistically significant improvements in time to analgesia dosing (mean difference (MD)=-42.51 min, 95% CI -60.39 to -24.64), fewer information omissions (MD=-2.22, 95% CI -3.68 to -0.77), fewer technical errors (MD=-2.38, 95% CI -4.10 to -0.66) and greater information sharing scores (MD=30.03%, 95% CI 19.67% to 40.40%). Only 15 of the 32 studies scored above 9 points on the modified D&B checklist, indicating a lack of high-quality studies.
Bundled interventions were commonly used to support OR to ICU handoff standardisation. Although the meta-analysis showed significant improvements for a number of clinical and process outcomes, the statistical and clinical heterogeneity must be accounted for when interpreting these findings. Implications for OR to ICU handoff practice and future research are discussed.

The introduction of a robot into the surgical suite changes the dynamics of the work-system, creating new opportunities for both success and failure. An extensive amount of research has identified a range of barriers to safety and efficiency in Robotic Assisted Surgery (RAS), such as communication breakdowns, coordination failures, equipment issues, and technological malfunctions. However, there exists very few solutions to these barriers. The purpose of this review was to identify the gap between identified RAS work-system barriers and interventions developed to address those barriers.
A search from three databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Ovid Medline) was conducted for literature discussing system-level interventions for RAS that were published between January 1, 1985 to March 17, 2020. Articles describing interventions for systems-level issues that did not involve technical skills in RAS were eligible for inclusion.
A total of 30 articles were included in the review. Only seven articles (23.33%) implemented and evaluated interventions, while the remaining 23 articles (76.67%) provided suggested interventions for issues in RAS. Major barriers identified included disruptions, ergonomic issues, safety and efficiency, communication, and non-technical skills. Common solutions involved team training, checklist development, and workspace redesign.
The review identified a significant gap between issues and solutions in RAS. While it is important to continue identifying how the complexities of RAS affect operating room (OR) and team dynamics, future work will need to address existing issues with interventions that have been tested and evaluated. In particular, improving RAS-associated non-technical skills, task management, and technology management may lead to improved OR dynamics associated with greater efficiency, reduced costs, and better systems-level outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine relevant items for reporting clinical trials on implantable medical devices (IMDs) and to identify reporting guidelines which include these items.
METHODS: A panel of experts identified the most relevant items for evaluating IMDs from an initial list based on reference papers. We then conducted a systematic review of articles indexed in MEDLINE. We retrieved reporting guidelines from the EQUATOR network\'s library for health research reporting. Finally, we screened these reporting guidelines to find those using our set of reporting items.
RESULTS: Seven relevant reporting items were selected that related to four topics: randomization, learning curve, surgical setting, and device information. A total of 348 reporting guidelines were identified, among which 26 met our inclusion criteria. However, none of the 26 reporting guidelines presented all seven items together. The most frequently reported item was timing of randomization (65%). On the contrary, device information and learning curve effects were poorly specified.
CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this study is the first to identify specific items related to IMDs in reporting guidelines for clinical trials. We have shown that no existing reporting guideline is totally suitable for these devices.

暂无摘要。