Effect of a pleural checklist on patient safety in the ultrasound era

• Published in: Respirology (Carlton, Vic.) Vic.), 2013-04, Vol.18 (3), p.534-539
• Main Authors: See, Kay Choong, Jamil, Khalizah, Chua, Ai Ping, Phua, Jason, Khoo, Kay Leong, Lim, Tow Keang
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: checklist; Checklist - methods; Chest Tubes; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; patient safety; Patient Safety - standards; pleura; Pleural Diseases - diagnostic imaging; Pleural Diseases - surgery; Prospective Studies; Reproducibility of Results; thoracostomy; Thoracostomy - methods; Ultrasonography
• ISSN: 1323-7799; 1440-1843
• DOI: 10.1111/resp.12033

Background and objective Bedside ultrasound allows direct visualization of pleural collections for thoracentesis and tube thoracostomy. However, there is little information on patient safety improvement methods with this approach. The effect of a checklist on patient safety for bedside ultrasound‐guided pleural procedures was evaluated. Methods A prospective study of ultrasound‐guided pleural procedures from September 2007 to June 2010 was performed. Ultrasound guidance was routine practice for all patients under the institution's care and the freehand method was used. All operators took a half‐day training session on basic thoracic ultrasound and were supervised by more experienced operators. A 14‐item checklist was introduced in June 2009. It included systematic thoracic scanning and a safety audit. Clinical and safety data are described before (Phase I) and after (Phase II) the introduction of the checklist. Results There were 121 patients in Phase I (58.7 ± 18.9 years) and 134 patients in Phase II (60.2 ± 19.6 years). Complications occurred for 10 patients (8.3%) in Phase I (six dry taps, three pneumothoraces, one haemothorax) and for 2 patients (1.5%) in Phase II (one significant bleed, one malposition of chest tube) (P = 0.015). There were no procedure‐related deaths. The use of the checklist alone was associated with fewer procedure‐related complications. This was independent of thoracostomy rate, pleural effusion size and pleural fluid ultrasound appearance. Conclusions A pleural checklist with systematic scanning and close supervision may further enhance safety of ultrasound‐guided procedures. This may also help promote safety while trainees are learning to perform these procedures. Little information exists on patient safety improvement methods in the era of thoracic ultrasonography. We evaluated the effect of a checklist in a before‐and‐after study of 255 patients. Complications decreased from 8.3% to 1.5%, suggesting that a pleural checklist may further enhance safety of ultrasound‐guided procedures.