The new england journal of medicine
n engl j med 360;5 nejm.org january 29, 2009
491
special article
A Surgical Safety Checklist to Reduce Morbidity
and Mortality in a Global Population
Alex B. Haynes, M.D., M.P.H., Thomas G. Weiser, M.D., M.P.H.,
William R. Berry, M.D., M.P.H., Stuart R. Lipsitz, Sc.D.,
Abdel-Hadi S. Breizat, M.D., Ph.D., E. Patchen Dellinger, M.D.,
Teodoro Herbosa, M.D., Sudhir Joseph, M.S., Pascience L. Kibatala, M.D.,
Marie Carmela M. Lapitan, M.D., Alan F. Merry, M.B., Ch.B., F.A.N.Z.C.A., F.R.C.A.,
Krishna Moorthy, M.D., F.R.C.S., Richard K. Reznick, M.D., M.Ed., Bryce Taylor, M.D.,
and Atul A. Gawande, M.D., M.P.H., for the Safe Surgery Saves Lives Study Group*
From the Harvard School of Public Health
(A.B.H., T.G.W., W.R.B., A.A.G.), Massa-
chusetts General Hospital (A.B.H.), and
Brigham and Women’s Hospital (S.R.L.,
A.A.G.) — all in Boston; University of
California–Davis, Sacramento (T.G.W.);
Prince Hamzah Hospital, Ministry of
Health, Amman, Jordan (A.-H.S.B.); Uni-
versity of Washington, Seattle (E.P.D.);
College of Medicine, University of the
Philippines, Manila (T.H.); St. Stephen’s
Hospital, New Delhi, India (S.J.); St. Fran-
cis Designated District Hospital, Ifakara,
Tanzania (P.L.K.); National Institute of
Health–University of the Philippines,
Manila (M.C.M.L.); University of Auck-
land and Auckland City Hospital, Auck-
land, New Zealand (A.F.M.); Imperial
College Healthcare National Health Ser-
vice Trust, London (K.M.); and University
Health Network, University of Toronto,
Toronto (R.K.R., B.T.). Address reprint re-
quests to Dr. Gawande at the Depart-
ment of Surgery, Brigham and Women’s
Hospital, 75 Francis St., Boston, MA 02115,
or at [email protected].
*Members of the Safe Surgery Saves Lives
Study Group are listed in the Appendix.
This article (10.1056/NEJMsa0810119) was
published at NEJM.org on January 14, 2009.
N Engl J Med 2009;360:491-9.
Copyright © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society.
Abstract
Background
Surgery has become an integral part of global health care, with an estimated 234
million operations performed yearly. Surgical complications are common and often
preventable. We hypothesized that a program to implement a 19-item surgical
safety checklist designed to improve team communication and consistency of care
would reduce complications and deaths associated with surgery.
Methods
Between October 2007 and September 2008, eight hospitals in eight cities (Toronto,
Canada; New Delhi, India; Amman, Jordan; Auckland, New Zealand; Manila, Phil-
ippines; Ifakara, Tanzania; London, England; and Seattle, WA) representing a vari-
ety of economic circumstances and diverse populations of patients participated in
the World Health Organization’s Safe Surgery Saves Lives program. We prospec-
tively collected data on clinical processes and outcomes from 3733 consecutively
enrolled patients 16 years of age or older who were undergoing noncardiac surgery.
We subsequently collected data on 3955 consecutively enrolled patients after the
introduction of the Surgical Safety Checklist. The primary end point was the rate of
complications, including death, during hospitalization within the first 30 days after
the operation.
Results
The rate of death was 1.5% before the checklist was introduced and declined to
0.8% afterward (P = 0.003). Inpatient complications occurred in 11.0% of patients at
baseline and in 7.0% after introduction of the checklist (P<0.001).
Conclusions
Implementation of the checklist was associated with concomitant reductions in the
rates of death and complications among patients at least 16 years of age who were
undergoing noncardiac surgery in a diverse group of hospitals.
Copyright © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
Downloaded from www.nejm.org by ALFREDO H. GUARISCHI MD on January 25, 2009 .
The new england journal of medicine
n engl j med 360;5 nejm.org january 29, 2009
492
Surgical care is an integral part of
health care throughout the world, with an
estimated 234 million operations performed
annually.1 This yearly volume now exceeds that of
childbirth.2 Surgery is performed in every com-
munity: wealthy and poor, rural and urban, and in
all regions. The World Bank reported that in 2002,
an estimated 164 million disability-adjusted life-
years, representing 11% of the entire disease bur-
den, were attributable to surgically treatable con-
ditions.3 Although surgical care can prevent loss
of life or limb, it is also associated with a consid-
erable risk of complications and death. The risk
of complications is poorly characterized in many
parts of the world, but studies in industrialized
countries have shown a perioperative rate of death
from inpatient surgery of 0.4 to 0.8% and a rate
of major complications of 3 to 17%.4,5 These
rates are likely to be much higher in developing
countries.6-9 Thus, surgical care and its attendant
complications represent a substantial burden of
disease worthy of attention from the public health
community worldwide.
Data suggest that at least half of all surgical
complications are avoidable.4,5 Previous efforts to
implement practices designed to reduce surgical-
site infections or anesthesia-related mishaps have
been shown to reduce complications significant-
ly.10-12 A growing body of evidence also links
teamwork in surgery to improved outcomes, with
high-functioning teams achieving significantly
reduced rates of adverse events.13,14
In 2008, the World Health Organization
(WHO) published guidelines identifying multiple
recommended practices to ensure the safety of
surgical patients worldwide.15 On the basis of
Table 1. Elements of the Surgical Safety Checklist.*
Sign in
Before induction of anesthesia, members of the team (at least the nurse and an anesthesia professional) orally confirm that:
The patient has verified his or her identity, the surgical site and procedure, and consent
The surgical site is marked or site marking is not applicable
The pulse oximeter is on the patient and functioning
All members of the team are aware of whether the patient has a known allergy
The patient’s airway and risk of aspiration have been evaluated and appropriate equipment and assistance are
available
If there is a risk of blood loss of at least 500 ml (or 7 ml/kg of body weight, in children), appropriate access and fluids
are available
Time out
Before skin incision, the entire team (nurses, surgeons, anesthesia professionals, and any others participating in the care
of the patient) orally:
Confirms that all team members have been introduced by name and role
Confirms the patient’s identity, surgical site, and procedure
Reviews the anticipated critical events
Surgeon reviews critical and unexpected steps, operative duration, and anticipated blood loss
Anesthesia staff review concerns specific to the patient
Nursing staff review confirmation of sterility, equipment availability, and other concerns
Confirms that prophylactic antibiotics have been administered ≤60 min before incision is made or that antibiotics are
not indicated
Confirms that all essential imaging results for the correct patient are displayed in the operating room
Sign out
Before the patient leaves the operating room:
Nurse reviews items aloud with the team
Name of the procedure as recorded
That the needle, sponge, and instrument counts are complete (or not applicable)
That the specimen (if any) is correctly labeled, including with the patient’s name
Whether there are any issues with equipment to be addressed
The surgeon, nurse, and anesthesia professional review aloud the key concerns for the recovery and care of the patient
* The checklist is based on the first edition of the WHO Guidelines for Safe Surgery.15 For the complete checklist, see the
Supplementary Appendix.
Copyright © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
Downloaded from www.nejm.org by ALFREDO H. GUARISCHI MD on January 25, 2009 .
A Surgical Safety Checklist
n engl j med 360;5 nejm.org january 29, 2009
493
these guidelines, we designed a 19-item check-
list intended to be globally applicable and to
reduce the rate of major surgical complications
(Table 1). (For the formatted checklist, see the
Supplementary Appendix, available with the full
text of this article at NEJM.org.) We hypothesized
that implementation of this checklist and the
associated culture changes it signified would re-
duce the rates of death and major complications
after surgery in diverse settings.
Methods
Study Design
We conducted a prospective study of preinterven-
tion and postintervention periods at the eight
hospitals participating as pilot sites in the Safe
Surgery Saves Lives program (Table 2). These in-
stitutions were selected on the basis of their geo-
graphic distribution within WHO regions, with
the goal of representing a diverse set of socioeco-
nomic environments in which surgery is performed.
Table 3 lists surgical safety policies in place at
each institution before the study. We required that
a coinvestigator at each site lead the project locally
and that the hospital administration support the
intervention. A local data collector was chosen at
each site and trained by the four primary investi-
gators in the identification and reporting of pro-
cess measures and complications. This person
worked on the study full-time and did not have
clinical responsibilities at the study site. Each hos-
pital identified between one and four operating
rooms to serve as study rooms. Patients who were
16 years of age or older and were undergoing non-
cardiac surgery in those rooms were consecutively
enrolled in the study. The human subjects com-
mittees of the Harvard School of Public Health,
the WHO, and each participating hospital ap-
proved the study and waived the requirement for
written informed consent from patients.
Intervention
The intervention involved a two-step checklist-
implementation program. After collecting base-
line data, each local investigator was given infor-
mation about areas of identified deficiencies and
was then asked to implement the 19-item WHO
safe-surgery checklist (Table 1) to improve prac-
tices within the institution. The checklist consists
of an oral confirmation by surgical teams of the
completion of the basic steps for ensuring safe
delivery of anesthesia, prophylaxis against infec-
tion, effective teamwork, and other essential prac-
tices in surgery. It is used at three critical junctures
in care: before anesthesia is administered, imme-
diately before incision, and before the patient is
taken out of the operating room. The checklist was
translated into local language when appropriate
and was adjusted to fit into the flow of care at
each institution. The local study team introduced
the checklist to operating-room staff, using lec-
tures, written materials, or direct guidance. The
primary investigators also participated in the train-
ing by distributing a recorded video to the study
sites, participating in a teleconference with each
local study team, and making a visit to each site.
The checklist was introduced to the study rooms
over a period of 1 week to 1 month. Data collection
resumed during the first week of checklist use.
Table 2. Characteristics of Participating Hospitals.
Site
Location
No. of
Beds
No. of
Operating Rooms
Type
Prince Hamzah Hospital
Amman, Jordan
500
13
Public, urban
St. Stephen’s Hospital
New Delhi, India
733
15
Charity, urban
University of Washington Medical Center
Seattle, Washington
410
24
Public, urban
St. Francis Designated District Hospital
Ifakara, Tanzania
371
3
District, rural
Philippine General Hospital
Manila, Philippines
1800
39
Public, urban
Toronto General Hospital
Toronto, Canada
744
19
Public, urban
St. Mary’s Hospital*
London, England
541
16
Public, urban
Auckland City Hospital
Auckland, New Zealand
710
31
Public, urban
* St. Mary’s Hospital has since been renamed St. Mary’s Hospital–Imperial College National Health Service Trust.
Copyright © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
Downloaded from www.nejm.org by ALFREDO H. GUARISCHI MD on January 25, 2009 .
The new england journal of medicine
n engl j med 360;5 nejm.org january 29, 2009
494
Data Collection
We obtained data on each operation from stan-
dardized data sheets completed by the local data
collectors or the clinical teams involved in surgi-
cal care. The data collectors received training and
supervision from the primary investigators in the
identification and classification of complications
and process measures. Perioperative data includ-
ed the demographic characteristics of patients,
procedural data, type of anesthetic used, and safe-
ty data. Data collectors followed patients pro-
spectively until discharge or for 30 days, which-
ever came first, for death and complications.
Outcomes were identified through chart monitor-
ing and communication with clinical staff. Com-
pleted data forms were stripped of direct identi-
fiers of patients and transmitted to the primary
investigators. We aimed to collect data on 500
consecutively enrolled patients at each site within
a period of less than 3 months for each of the
two phases of the study. At the three sites at which
this goal could not be achieved, the period of
data collection was extended for up to 3 additional
months to allow for accrual of a sufficient num-
ber of patients. The sample size was calculated to
detect a 20% reduction in complications after the
checklist was implemented, with a statistical
power of 80% and an alpha value of 0.05.
Outcomes
The primary end point was the occurrence of any
major complication, including death, during the
period of postoperative hospitalization, up to 30
days. Complications were defined as they are in
the American College of Surgeons’ National Sur-
gical Quality Improvement Program17: acute renal
failure, bleeding requiring the transfusion of 4 or
more units of red cells within the first 72 hours
after surgery, cardiac arrest requiring cardiopul-
monary resuscitation, coma of 24 hours’ duration
or more, deep-vein thrombosis, myocardial infarc-
tion, unplanned intubation, ventilator use for 48
hours or more, pneumonia, pulmonary embolism,
stroke, major disruption of wound, infection of
surgical site, sepsis, septic shock, the systemic
inflammatory response syndrome, unplanned re-
turn to the operating room, vascular graft fail-
ure, and death. Urinary tract infection was not
considered a major complication. A group of phy-
sician reviewers determined, by consensus, wheth-
er postoperative events reported as “other com-
plications” qualified as major complications,
using the Clavien classification for guidance.18
We assessed adherence to a subgroup of six
safety measures as an indicator of process adher-
ence. The six measures were the objective evalu-
ation and documentation of the status of the
patient’s airway before administration of the anes-
thetic; the use of pulse oximetry at the time of
initiation of anesthesia; the presence of at least
two peripheral intravenous catheters or a central
venous catheter before incision in cases involving
an estimated blood loss of 500 ml or more; the
administration of prophylactic antibiotics within
60 minutes before incision except in the case of
preexisting infection, a procedure not involving
incision, or a contaminated operative field; oral
confirmation, immediately before incision, of the
Table 3. Surgical Safety Policies in Place at Participating Hospitals before the Study.
Site No.*
Routine
Intraoperative
Monitoring with
Pulse Oximetry
Oral Confirmation
of Patient’s Identity
and Surgical Site
in Operating Room
Routine Administration
of Prophylactic Antibiotics
in Operating Room
Standard Plan for
Intravenous Access
for Cases of High
Blood Loss
Formal Team Briefing
Preoperative Postoperative
1
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
2
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
3
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
4
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
5
No
No
No
No
No
No
6
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
7
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
8
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
* Sites 1 through 4 are located in high-income countries; sites 5 through 8 are located in low- or middle-income countries.16
Copyright © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
Downloaded from www.nejm.org by ALFREDO H. GUARISCHI MD on January 25, 2009 .
A Surgical Safety Checklist
n engl j med 360;5 nejm.org january 29, 2009
495
identity of the patient, the operative site, and the
procedure to be performed; and completion of
a sponge count at the end of the procedure, if
an incision was made. We recorded whether all
six of these safety measures were taken for each
patient.
Statistical Analysis
Statistical analyses were performed with the use
of the SAS statistical software package, version 9.1
(SAS Institute). To minimize the effect of differ-
ences in the numbers of patients at each site, we
standardized the rates of various end points to
reflect the proportion of patients from each site.
These standardized rates were used to compute
the frequencies of performance of specified safe-
ty measures, major complications, and death at
each site before and after implementation of the
checklist.19 We used logistic-regression analysis
to calculate two-sided P values for each compari-
son, with site as a fixed effect. We used general-
ized-estimating-equation methods to test for any
effect of clustering according to site.
We performed additional analyses to test the
robustness of our findings, including logistic-
regression analyses in which the presence or ab-
sence of a data collector in the operating room
and the case mix were added as variables. We
classified cases as orthopedic, thoracic, nonobstet-
ric abdominopelvic, obstetric, vascular, endoscop-
ic, or other. To determine whether the effect of
the checklist at any one site dominated the re-
sults, we performed cross-validation by sequen-
tially removing each site from the analysis. Final-
ly, we disaggregated the sites on the basis of
whether they were located in high-income or low-
or middle-income countries and repeated our
analysis of primary end points. All reported
P values are two-sided, and no adjustments were
made for multiple comparisons.
Results
We enrolled 3733 patients during the baseline
period and 3955 patients after implementation of
the checklist. Table 4 lists characteristics of the
patients and their distribution among the sites;
there were no significant differences between the
patients in the two phases of the study.
The rate of any complication at all sites
dropped from 11.0% at baseline to 7.0% after
introduction of the checklist (P<0.001); the total
in-hospital rate of death dropped from 1.5% to
0.8% (P = 0.003) (Table 5). The overall rates of
surgical-site infection and unplanned reoperation
also declined significantly (P<0.001 and P = 0.047,
respectively). Operative data were collected by the
local data collector through direct observation
for 37.5% of patients and by unobserved clinical
teams for the remainder. Neither the presence nor
Table 4. Characteristics of the Patients and Procedures before and after Checklist Implementation, According to Site.*
Site No.
No. of
Patients Enrolled
Age
Female Sex
Urgent Case
Outpatient
Procedure
General
Anesthetic
Before
After
Before
After
Before
After
Before
After
Before
After Before After
years
percent
1
524
598
51.9±15.3
51.4±14.7
58.2
62.7
7.4
8.0
31.7
31.8
95.0
95.2
2
357
351
53.5±18.4
54.0±18.3
54.1
56.7
18.8
14.5
23.5
20.5
92.7
93.5
3
497
486
51.9±21.5
53.0±20.3
44.3
49.8
17.9
22.4
6.4
9.3
91.2
94.0
4
520
545
57.0±14.9
56.1±15.0
48.1
49.6
6.9
1.8
14.4
11.0
96.9
97.8
5
370
330
34.3±15.0
31.5±14.2
78.3
78.4
46.1
65.4
0.0
0.0
17.0
10.0
6
496
476
44.6±15.9
46.0±15.5
45.0
46.6
28.4
22.5
1.4
1.1
61.7
59.9
7
525
585
37.4±14.0
39.6±14.9
69.1
68.6
45.7
41.0
0.0
0.0
49.1
55.9
8
444
584
41.9±15.8
39.7±16.2
57.0
52.7
13.5
21.9
0.9
0.2
97.5
94.7
Total
3733
3955
46.8±18.1
46.7±17.9
56.2
57.6
22.3
23.3
9.9
9.4
77.0
77.3
P value
0.63
0.21
0.26
0.40
0.68
* Plus–minus values are means ±SD. Urgent cases were those in which surgery within 24 hours was deemed necessary by the clinical team.
Outpatient procedures were those for which discharge from the hospital occurred on the same day as the operation. P values are shown for
the comparison of the total value after checklist implementation with the total value before implementation.
Copyright © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
Downloaded from www.nejm.org by ALFREDO H. GUARISCHI MD on January 25, 2009 .
The new england journal of medicine
n engl j med 360;5 nejm.org january 29, 2009
496
absence of a direct observer nor changes in case
mix affected the significance of the changes in
the rate of complications (P<0.001 for both alter-
native models) or the rate of death (P = 0.003 with
the presence or absence of direct observation in-
cluded and P = 0.002 with case-mix variables
included). Rates of complication fell from 10.3%
before the introduction of the checklist to 7.1%
after its introduction among high-income sites
(P<0.001) and from 11.7% to 6.8% among lower-
income sites (P<0.001). The rate of death was re-
duced from 0.9% before checklist introduction to
0.6% afterward at high-income sites (P = 0.18) and
from 2.1% to 1.0% at lower-income sites (P = 0.006),
although only the latter difference was signifi-
cant. In the cross-validation analysis, the effect
of the checklist intervention on the rate of death
or complications remained significant after the
removal of any site from the model (P<0.05). We
also found no change in the significance of the
effect on the basis of clustering (P = 0.003 for
the rate of death and P = 0.001 for the rate of com-
plications).
Table 6 shows the changes in six measured
processes at each site after introduction of the
checklist. During the baseline period, all six mea-
sured safety indicators were performed for 34.2%
of the patients, with an increase to 56.7% of
patients after implementation of the checklist
(P<0.001). At each site, implementation of the
checklist also required routine performance of
team introductions, briefings, and debriefings,
but adherence rates could not be measured.
Discussion
Introduction of the WHO Surgical Safety Check-
list into operating rooms in eight diverse hospi-
tals was associated with marked improvements
in surgical outcomes. Postoperative complication
rates fell by 36% on average, and death rates fell
by a similar amount. All sites had a reduction in
the rate of major postoperative complications,
with a significant reduction at three sites, one in
a high-income location and two in lower-income
locations. The reduction in complications was
maintained when the analysis was adjusted for
case-mix variables. In addition, although the ef-
fect of the intervention was stronger at some sites
than at others, no single site was responsible for
the overall effect, nor was the effect confined to
high-income or low-income sites exclusively. The
reduction in the rates of death and complications
suggests that the checklist program can improve
the safety of surgical patients in diverse clinical
and economic environments.
Whereas the evidence of improvement in sur-
gical outcomes is substantial and robust, the ex-
Table 5. Outcomes before and after Checklist Implementation, According to Site.*
Site No.
No. of Patients
Enrolled
Surgical-Site
Infection
Unplanned Return to
the Operating Room
Pneumonia
Death
Any Complication
Before
After
Before
After
Before
After
Before
After
Before
After
Before
After
percent
1
524
598
4.0
2.0
4.6
1.8
0.8
1.2
1.0
0.0
11.6
7.0
2
357
351
2.0
1.7
0.6
1.1
3.6
3.7
1.1
0.3
7.8
6.3
3
497
486
5.8
4.3
4.6
2.7
1.6
1.7
0.8
1.4
13.5
9.7
4
520
545
3.1
2.6
2.5
2.2
0.6
0.9
1.0
0.6
7.5
5.5
5
370
330
20.5
3.6
1.4
1.8
0.3
0.0
1.4
0.0
21.4
5.5
6
496
476
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.2
2.0
1.9
3.6
1.7
10.1
9.7
7
525
585
9.5
5.8
1.3
0.2
1.0
1.7
2.1
1.7
12.4
8.0
8
444
584
4.1
2.4
0.5
1.2
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.3
6.1
3.6
Total
3733
3955
6.2
3.4
2.4
1.8
1.1
1.3
1.5
0.8
11.0
7.0
P value
<0.001
0.047
0.46
0.003
<0.001
* The most common complications occurring during the first 30 days of hospitalization after the operation are listed. Bold type indicates values
that were significantly different (at P<0.05) before and after checklist implementation, on the basis of P values calculated by means of the chi-
square test or Fisher’s exact test. P values are shown for the comparison of the total value after checklist implementation as compared with
the total value before implementation.
Copyright © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
Downloaded from www.nejm.org by ALFREDO H. GUARISCHI MD on January 25, 2009 .
A Surgical Safety Checklist
n engl j med 360;5 nejm.org january 29, 2009
497
act mechanism of improvement is less clear and
most likely multifactorial. Use of the checklist
involved both changes in systems and changes
in the behavior of individual surgical teams. To
implement the checklist, all sites had to introduce
a formal pause in care during surgery for preop-
erative team introductions and briefings and
postoperative debriefings, team practices that
have previously been shown to be associated with
improved safety processes and attitudes14,20,21 and
with a rate of complications and death reduced
by as much as 80%.13 The philosophy of ensur-
ing the correct identity of the patient and site
through preoperative site marking, oral confirma-
tion in the operating room, and other measures
proved to be new to most of the study hospitals.
In addition, institution of the checklist re-
quired changes in systems at three institutions,
in order to change the location of administration
of antibiotics. Checklist implementation encour-
aged the administration of antibiotics in the op-
erating room rather than in the preoperative
wards, where delays are frequent. The checklist
provided additional oral confirmation of appro-
priate antibiotic use, increasing the adherence
rate from 56 to 83%; this intervention alone has
been shown to reduce the rate of surgical-site
infection by 33 to 88%.22-28 Other potentially
lifesaving measures were also more likely to be
instituted, including an objective airway evalua-
tion and use of pulse oximetry, though the change
in these measures was less dramatic.15 Although
the omission of individual steps was still fre-
quent, overall adherence to the subgroup of six
safety indicators increased by two thirds. The
sum of these individual systemic and behavioral
changes could account for the improvements
observed.
Another mechanism, however, could be the
Hawthorne effect, an improvement in perfor-
mance due to subjects’ knowledge of being ob-
served.29 The contribution of the Hawthorne ef-
fect is difficult to disentangle in this study. The
checklist is orally performed by peers and is in-
tentionally designed to create a collective aware-
ness among surgical teams about whether safety
processes are being completed. However, our
analysis does show that the presence of study
personnel in the operating room was not respon-
sible for the change in the rate of complications.
This study has several limitations. The design,
involving a comparison of preintervention data
Table 6.
Selected Process Measures before and after Checklist Implementation, According to Site.*
Site No.
No. of
Patients Enrolled
Objective Airway
Evaluation Performed (N
=
7688)
Pulse Oximeter
Used
(N
=
7688)
Two Peripheral or One
Central IV Catheter
Present at Incision When
E
B
L ≥
500 m
l (N
=
953)
Prophylactic
Antibiotics G
iven
Appropriately
(N
=
6802)
Oral Confirmation of Patient’s Identity and Operative Site
(N
=
7688)
Sponge Count
Completed (N
=
7572)
All Six Safety
Indicators Performed (N
=
7688)
Before
After
Before
After
Before
After
Before
After
Before
After
Before
After
Before
After
Before
After
percent
1
524
598
97.0
98.5
100.0
100.0
95.7
83.6
98.1
96.9
100.0
100.0
98.9
100.0
94.1
94.2
2
357
351
72.0
75.8
97.5
98.6
78.8
61.3
56.9
76.9
9.5
97.2
100.0
100.0
3.6
55.3
3
497
486
74.7
66.3
98.6
100.0
83.8
82.5
83.8
87.7
47.1
90.1
97.8
96.8
30.8
51.0
4
520
545
94.6
95.8
100.0
100.0
66.7
48.6
80.0
81.8
98.9
97.6
97.3
99.1
67.1
63.7
5
370
330
6.2
0.0
68.9
91.2
7.6
2.7
29.8
96.2
0.0
86.1
0.0
92.4
0.0
0.0
6
496
476
46.2
56.3
76.4
83.0
49.2
57.9
25.4
50.6
21.8
64.9
99.4
99.4
1.4
18.1
7
525
585
97.5
99.7
99.4
100.0
32.0
100.0
42.5
91.7
98.9
100.0
100.0
100.0
46.7
92.1
8
444
584
0.5
94.0
99.3
99.5
68.8
57.1
18.2
77.6
16.4
98.8
61.3
70.0
0.0
51.7
Total
3733
3955
64.0
77.2
93.6
96.8
58.1
63.2
56.1
82.6
54.4
92.3
84.6
94.6
34.2
56.7
P value
<0.001
<0.001
0.32
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
* Prophylactic antibiotics were considered to be indicated for all cases in which an incision was made through an uncontaminated field and appropriately administered when given within
60 minutes before an incision was made. Sponge counts were considered to be indicated in all cases in which an incision was made. P values are shown for the comparison of the total values before and after checklist implementation, calculated by means of the chi-square test. EBL denotes estimated blood loss, and IV intravenous.
Copyright © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
Downloaded from www.nejm.org by ALFREDO H. GUARISCHI MD on January 25, 2009 .
The new england journal of medicine
n engl j med 360;5 nejm.org january 29, 2009
498
with postintervention data and the consecutive
recruitment of the two groups of patients from
the same operating rooms at the same hospitals,
was chosen because it was not possible to ran-
domly assign the use of the checklist to specific
operating rooms without significant cross-con-
tamination. One danger of this design is con-
founding by secular trends. We therefore confined
the duration of the study to less than 1 year, since
a change in outcomes of the observed magnitude
is unlikely to occur in such a short period as a
result of secular trends alone. In addition, an
evaluation of the American College of Surgeons’
National Surgical Quality Improvement Program
cohort in the United States during 2007 did not
reveal a substantial change in the rate of death
and complications (Ashley S. personal commu-
nication, http://acsnsqip.org). We also found no
change in our study groups with regard to the
rates of urgent cases, outpatient surgery, or use
of general anesthetic, and we found that chang-
es in the case mix had no effect on the signifi-
cance of the outcomes. Other temporal effects,
such as seasonal variation and the timing of
surgical training periods, were mitigated, since
the study sites are geographically mixed and
have different cycles of surgical training. There-
fore, it is unlikely that a temporal trend was re-
sponsible for the difference we observed between
the two groups in this study.
Another limitation of the study is that data
collection was restricted to inpatient complica-
tions. The effect of the intervention on outpatient
complications is not known. This limitation is
particularly relevant to patients undergoing out-
patient procedures, for whom the collection of
outcome data ceased on their discharge from the
hospital on the day of the procedure, resulting
in an underestimation of the rates of complica-
tions. In addition, data collectors were trained in
the identification of complications and collection
of complications data at the beginning of the
study. There may have been a learning curve in
the process of collecting the data. However, if this
were the case, it is likely that increasing num-
bers of complications would be identified as the
study progressed, which would bias the results in
the direction of an underestimation of the effect.
One additional concern is how feasible the
checklist intervention might be for other hospi-
tals. Implementation proved neither costly nor
lengthy. All sites were able to introduce the
checklist over a period of 1 week to 1 month.
Only two of the safety measures in the checklist
entail the commitment of significant resources:
use of pulse oximetry and use of prophylactic
antibiotics. Both were available at all the sites,
including the low-income sites, before the inter-
vention, although their use was inconsistent.
Surgical complications are a considerable cause
of death and disability around the world.3 They
are devastating to patients, costly to health care
systems, and often preventable, though their pre-
vention typically requires a change in systems and
individual behavior. In this study, a checklist-
based program was associated with a significant
decline in the rate of complications and death
from surgery in a diverse group of institutions
around the world. Applied on a global basis, this
checklist program has the potential to prevent
large numbers of deaths and disabling compli-
cations, although further study is needed to de-
termine the precise mechanism and durability of
the effect in specific settings.
Supported by grants from the World Health Organization.
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was
reported.
APPENDIX
The members of the Safe Surgery Saves Lives Study Group were as follows: Amman, Jordan: A.S. Breizat, A.F. Awamleh, O.G. Sadieh;
Auckland, New Zealand: A.F. Merry, S.J. Mitchell, V. Cochrane, A.-M. Wilkinson, J. Windsor, N. Robertson, N. Smith, W. Guthrie, V.
Beavis; Ifakara, Tanzania: P. Kibatala, B. Jullu, R. Mayoka, M. Kasuga, W. Sawaki, N. Pak; London, England: A. Darzi, K. Moorthy, A.
Vats, R. Davies, K. Nagpal, M. Sacks; Manila, Philippines: T. Herbosa, M.C.M. Lapitan, G. Herbosa, C. Meghrajani; New Delhi, India:
S. Joseph, A. Kumar, H. Singh Chauhan; Seattle, Washington: E.P. Dellinger, K. Gerber; Toronto, Canada: R.K. Reznick, B. Taylor, A.
Slater; Boston, Massachusetts: W.R. Berry, A.A. Gawande, A.B. Haynes, S.R. Lipsitz, T.G. Weiser; Geneva, Switzerland: L. Donaldson,
G. Dziekan, P. Philip; Baltimore, Maryland: M. Makary; Ankara, Turkey: I. Sayek; Sydney, Australia: B. Barraclough.
References
Weiser TG, Regenbogen SE, Thomp-
1.
son KD, et al. An estimation of the global
volume of surgery: a modelling strategy
based on available data. Lancet 2008;372:
139-44.
Ronsmans C, Graham WJ. Maternal
2.
mortality: who, when, where, and why.
Lancet 2006;368:1189-200.
Debas HT, Gosselin R, McCord C,
3.
Copyright © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
Downloaded from www.nejm.org by ALFREDO H. GUARISCHI MD on January 25, 2009 .
A Surgical Safety Checklist
n engl j med 360;5 nejm.org january 29, 2009
499
Thind A. Surgery. In: Jamison DT, Bre-
man JG, Measham AR, et al., eds. Disease
control priorities in developing countries.
2nd ed. Disease Control Priorities Project.
Washington, DC: International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development/World
Bank, 2006:1245-60.
Gawande AA, Thomas EJ, Zinner MJ,
4.
Brennan TA. The incidence and nature of
surgical adverse events in Colorado and
Utah in 1992. Surgery 1999;126:66-75.
Kable AK, Gibberd RW, Spigelman
5.
AD. Adverse events in surgical patients in
Australia. Int J Qual Health Care 2002;14:
269-76.
Bickler SW, Sanno-Duanda B. Epide-
6.
miology of paediatric surgical admissions
to a government referral hospital in the
Gambia. Bull World Health Organ 2000;78:
1330-6.
Yii MK, Ng KJ. Risk-adjusted surgical
7.
audit with the POSSUM scoring system in
a developing country. Br J Surg 2002;89:
110-3.
McConkey SJ. Case series of acute ab-
8.
dominal surgery in rural Sierra Leone.
World J Surg 2002;26:509-13.
Ouro-Bang’na Maman AF, Tomta K,
9.
Ahouangbévi S, Chobli M. Deaths associ-
ated with anaesthesia in Togo, West Afri-
ca. Trop Doct 2005;35:220-2.
Dellinger EP, Hausmann SM, Bratzler
10.
DW, et al. Hospitals collaborate to de-
crease surgical site infections. Am J Surg
2005;190:9-15.
Classen DC, Evans RS, Pestotnik SL,
11.
Horn SD, Menlove RL, Burke JP. The tim-
ing of prophylactic administration of an-
tibiotics and the risk of surgical-wound
infection. N Engl J Med 1992;326:281-6.
Runciman WB. Iatrogenic harm and
12.
anaesthesia in Australia. Anaesth Inten-
sive Care 2005;33:297-300.
Mazzocco K, Petitti DB, Fong KT, et al.
13.
Surgical team behaviors and patient out-
comes. Am J Surg 2008 September 11
(Epub ahead of print).
Lingard L, Regehr G, Orser B, et al.
14.
Evaluation of a preoperative checklist and
team briefing among surgeons, nurses,
and anesthesiologists to reduce failures
in communication. Arch Surg 2008;143:
12-8.
World Alliance for Patient Safety.
15.
WHO guidelines for safe surgery. Geneva:
World Health Organization, 2008.
World Bank. Data & statistics: country
16.
classification. (Accessed January 5, 2009,
at http://go.worldbank.org/K2CKM78CC0.)
Khuri SF, Daley J, Henderson W, et al.
17.
The National Veterans Administration Sur-
gical Risk Study: risk adjustment for the
comparative assessment of the quality of
surgical care. J Am Coll Surg 1995;180:
519-31.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA.
18.
Classification of surgical complications:
a new proposal with evaluation in a co-
hort of 6336 patients and results of a sur-
vey. Ann Surg 2004;240:205-13.
Fleiss JL, Levin B, Paik MC. Statistical
19.
methods for rates and proportions. 3rd ed.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley, 2003.
Sexton JB, Makary MA, Tersigni AR,
20.
et al. Teamwork in the operating room:
frontline perspectives among hospitals
and operating room personnel. Anesthe-
siology 2006;105:877-84.
Makary MA, Sexton JB, Freischlag JA,
21.
et al. Operating room teamwork among
physicians and nurses: teamwork in the
eye of the beholder. J Am Coll Surg
2006;202:746-52.
Platt R, Zaleznik DF, Hopkins CC, et
22.
al. Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis for
herniorrhaphy and breast surgery. N Engl
J Med 1990;322:153-60.
Austin TW, Coles JC, Burnett R, Gold-
23.
bach M. Aortocoronary bypass procedures
and sternotomy infections: a study of anti-
staphylococcal prophylaxis. Can J Surg
1980;23:483-5.
Baum ML, Anish DS, Chalmers TC,
24.
Sacks HS, Smith H Jr, Fagerstrom RM.
A survey of clinical trials of antibiotic
prophylaxis in colon surgery: evidence
against further use of no-treatment con-
trols. N Engl J Med 1981;305:795-9.
Bernard HR, Cole WR. The prophy-
25.
laxis of surgical infection: the effect of
prophylactic antimicrobial drugs on the
incidence of infection following potential-
ly contaminated operations. Surgery 1964;
56:151-7.
Hasselgren PO, Ivarsson L, Risberg B,
26.
Seeman T. Effects of prophylactic antibi-
otics in vascular surgery: a prospective,
randomized, double-blind study. Ann Surg
1984;200:86-92.
Barker FG II. Efficacy of prophylactic
27.
antibiotics for craniotomy: a meta-analy-
sis. Neurosurgery 1994;35:484-92.
Norden CW. Antibiotic prophylaxis in
28.
orthopedic surgery. Rev Infect Dis 1991;13:
Suppl 10:S842-S846.
Mayo E. The human problems of an
29.
industrial civilization. New York: Mac-
millan, 1933.
Copyright © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society.
Copyright © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
Downloaded from www.nejm.org by ALFREDO H. GUARISCHI MD on January 25, 2009 .