The Problem with Checklists
Abstract
‘The Problem with…’ series covers controversial topics related to efforts to improve healthcare quality, including widely recommended but deceptively difficult strategies for improvement and pervasive problems that seem to resist solution. Since the seminal studies by Gawande and colleagues1 and Pronovost et al ,2 checklists have become the go-to solution for a vast range of patient safety and quality issues in healthcare. Some see them as a quick and obvious solution to a relatively straightforward problem. For others, they illustrate a failure to understand and address the complex challenges in patient safety and quality improvement. Indeed, successes3 and failures4–6 illustrate an underlying difficulty with understanding precisely why checklists work in some cases but not in others. A recent viewpoint summarises the varying applications of checklists in aviation and healthcare, reflecting upon the dangers of making assumptions about their ‘ubiquitous utility’.7 This provided a timely “The Problem with…”8 opportunity, in which we consider the narratives that often surround the complex challenges faced in designing and implementing a successful checklist, and the science used to explore it. The apparent simplicity of a checklist is understandingly tempting, with some narratives suggesting that their adoption can be used to effectively address what would appear to be intractable, complex and potentially painful systems issues. However, this simple narrative does not always re…
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?
If poorly designed or not implemented rigorously, checklists may limit clinical flexibility and fail to accommodate the complexity of real-world diagnostic reasoning.
“Moreover, if poorly designed or not implemented rigorously, checklists may limit clinical flexibility and fail to accommodate the complexity of real-world diagnostic reasoning [209].”
From Toward Safer Diagnoses: A SEIPS-Based Narrative Review of Diagnostic Errors (2026) · cites this paper as [209]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 20 · Cited by 154
- Authors
- Catchpole, K., & Russ, S.
- Affiliations
- Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (US)
- University of Aberdeen (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Catchpole, Ken
- Venue
- BMJ Quality & Safety
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2015-06-18
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 545-549
- ISSN
- 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
- 2044-5415
- 2044-5423
- OpenAlex
- W2218059760
- Cited by
- 154
- References
- 20
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 24.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- BMJ Quality & Safety (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Keywords
- checklists, patient safety, healthcare quality improvement, checklist design, checklist implementation, complex systems, sociocultural factors
- MeSH terms
- Quality Assurance, Health Care, General Surgery, 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