Advancing the Use of Checklists for Evaluating Performance in Health Care
Abstract
Patients frequently do not receive recommended therapies because performance expectations are often unclear. Clinical guidelines provide exhaustive details and recommendations, but this information is not formatted in a way that supports decision making or bedside translation of therapies. When performance expectations are unclear, it is difficult for clinicians to assess their own or others' competence. Checklists offer hope because they codify interventions, remove ambiguity, and increase reliability of care processes. Schmutz and colleagues developed a robust methodology to create a checklist for evaluating clinical performance, which is described in this issue of Academic Medicine.In this commentary, the authors offer several points to consider as checklists become more prevalent in medical education and clinical practice. First, culture is a much larger part of the equation than the checklist; understanding what all stakeholders expect to gain will help engage checklist use. Second, the construction, validation, and maintenance of checklist evaluation tools is labor intensive, requiring innovative dissemination approaches to ensure maximum access and use of checklists. Third, integrated systems that evaluate technically specified and adaptive performance are needed because some aspects of clinical performance cannot be captured on a checklist. Fourth, checklists provide an opportunity to evaluate and improve an individual's performance concurrently with the context in wh…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Clinical checklists turn evidence-based guidelines into clear, practical steps that reduce confusion and help ensure that every patient receives safe, consistent, and high-quality care.
“Clinical checklists turn evidence-based guidelines into clear, practical steps that reduce confusion and help ensure that every patient receives safe, consistent, and high-quality care [200,201].”
From Toward Safer Diagnoses: A SEIPS-Based Narrative Review of Diagnostic Errors (2026) · cites this paper as [201]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 11 · Cited by 60
- Authors
- Rosen, M. A., & Pronovost, P. J.
- Affiliations
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (US)
- Corresponding author
- Pronovost, Peter J.
- Venue
- Academic Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2014-07
- Volume
- 89
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 963-965
- ISSN
- 1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2027295311
- Cited by
- 60
- References
- 11
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 1
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Academic Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (K01HS018762)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Keywords
- checklists, clinical performance assessment, clinical competence assessment, clinical guidelines, performance expectations, organizational culture, process improvement, patient safety, quality of care, medical education
- MeSH terms
- Clinical Competence, Humans, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Checklist
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review