Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao The Lancetarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
The Lancet
Article . 2009 . Peer-reviewed
License: Elsevier TDM
Data sources: Crossref
The Lancet
Article . 2009
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.

You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.

Ticking the right boxes

Authors: Jeremy, Laurance;
Abstract

Does the Guinness Book of Records, I wonder, have an entry for the doctor who has saved most lives? Immediate candidates that spring to mind are Ignaz Semmelweiss, Alexander Fleming, and Richard Doll. Living candidates are harder, but one who, I predict, may soon be among them is US surgeon, Atul Gawande. As well as wielding his scalpel at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Dana Farber Cancer Institute and being a staff writer for The New Yorker, he fronts WHO’s drive to implement the surgical safety checklist— 19 items to be run through, in the same way that pilots check the cockpit, before an operation begins. Last month Gawande gave the James Reason Inaugural Annual Lecture, at London’s Royal Society of Medicine. He discussed the latest fi ndings of the Safe Surgery Saves Lives Study Group, which show that use of this checklist cuts deaths by almost half and complications by more than a third (NEJM 2009; 360: 491–99). Given that 234 million operations are done globally each year that translates to millions of lives saved (Lancet 2008; 372: 139–44). But how to get surgeons—individuals not given to self-doubt—to do it? Early experience has shown around 20% of surgeons were sceptical about its value. Yet when asked if they would want the checklist used when they were a patient, 93% replied yes. As Director of WHO’s Global Patient Safety Challenge, Safe Surgery Saves Lives, Gawande says two things are necessary to secure change: measure performance and publish the results. When sceptical surgeons are shown that wound infection rates are too high in their patients, they will start to use the checklist to remind them to give preventive antibiotics before the operation. Peer pressure is the great driver. The beauty of the checklist is that it is simple, cheap to implement, and more eff ective than a whole bunch of miracle cures. Some really big advances in medicine are likely to come not from technological breakthroughs and new ways of working but from doing what we have always done, but doing it “better” (the title of Gawande’s 2007 bestseller). That requires vigilance, diligence, and ingenuity, which the checklist can assist. Having been promoted in intensive care by Peter Pronovost, the checklist is already here for surgery and will shortly be extended to maternity care, cardiac care, and other areas of medicine. It may turn out to be the greatest clinical innovation in the past 30 years.

Keywords

Attitude of Health Personnel, Surgical Procedures, Operative, Preoperative Care, Humans

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Related to Research communities
Cancer Research
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!