↓ Skip to main content

Development and Implementation of a Perianesthetic Safety Checklist in a Veterinary University Small Animal Teaching Hospital

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Development and Implementation of a Perianesthetic Safety Checklist in a Veterinary University Small Animal Teaching Hospital
Published in
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, April 2018
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2018.00060
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gwennaëlle Menoud, Shannon Axiak Flammer, Claudia Spadavecchia, Mathieu Raillard

Abstract

The use of a surgical safety checklist is recommended by the World Health Organization and is associated with advantages: improved communication and reduced complications and mortality. Adapting checklists to the environment in which they are used improves their efficiency, but their implementation can be challenging. The aim of this study was to develop and implement a perianesthetic safety checklist for a small animal hospital. A panel of eight anesthesia diplomates and seven residents and doctoral students were gathered. The Delphi method was used to generate a checklist. The checklist was presented individually to each user by the primary investigator and introduced into the clinical routine over a 5-week period. An interdisciplinary meeting was then held, and the checklist was modified further. Six months after introduction, the use of the checklist was directly observed during 69 anesthetic cases and a survey was sent to the users. A second implementation was organized after formally presenting the checklist to the staff, designating the anesthesia clinical lead as the person responsible for printing and controlling use of the checklist. A second evaluation was performed 3 months later (64 anesthetic cases). Using the Delphi process led to the creation of a checklist consisting of three parts: "sign in" (before induction of anesthesia), "time out" (before the beginning of the procedure), "sign out" (at the end of the procedure). At the first assessment, the checklist was printed and used in 32% of cases and not printed in 41% of cases. Response rate of the survey was fair (19/32 surveys): 14/19 users thought the checklist contributed to improving communication; 15/19 reported improved safety and better management of the animals; 9/19 users avoided mistakes (77% would have omitted the administration of antimicrobial prophylaxis); 10/19 thought it was time consuming. At the second assessment, the checklist was used in 45% of cases (printed but not used in 55%). The use of the sign-out section of the checklist was significantly improved. This study illustrates an innovative use of the Delphi method to create a safety checklist. Challenges associated with implementation are reported.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 19%
Student > Master 9 16%
Other 7 12%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Researcher 3 5%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 17 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 23 40%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Unspecified 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 17 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 April 2018.
All research outputs
#14,978,071
of 23,039,416 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#2,710
of 6,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,838
of 329,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#48
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,039,416 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,340 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,118 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.