Cited by 133Patient Safety and Medication ErrorsClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsHospital Admissions and Outcomes

More Than a Tick Box: Medical Checklist Development, Design, and Use

Burian, Barbara K., Clebone, Anna, Dismukes, Key, Ruskin, Keith J.·2018·Anesthesia & Analgesia

Abstract

Despite improving patient safety in some perioperative settings, some checklists are not living up to their potential and complaints of “checklist fatigue” and outright rejection of checklists are growing. Problems reported often concern human factors: poor design, inadequate introduction and training, duplication with other safety checks, poor integration with existing workflow, and cultural barriers. Each medical setting—such as an operating room or a critical care unit—and different clinical needs—such as a shift handover or critical event response—require a different checklist design. One size will not fit all, and checklists must be built around the structure of medical teams and the flow of their work in those settings. Useful guidance can be found in the literature; however, to date, no integrated and comprehensive framework exists to guide development and design of checklists to be effective and harmonious with the flow of medical and perioperative tasks. We propose such a framework organized around the 5 stages of the checklist life cycle: (1) conception, (2) determination of content and design, (3) testing and validation, (4) induction, training, and implementation, and (5) ongoing evaluation, revision, and possible retirement. We also illustrate one way in which the design of checklists can better match user needs in specific perioperative settings (in this case, the operating room during critical events). Medical checklists will only live up to their potential to improve the quality of patient care if their development is improved and their designs are tailored to the specific needs of the users and the environments in which they are used.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1213/ane.0000000000002286

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Each medical environment has distinct clinical requirements and needs a customized checklist that fits the team's workflow and structure.

    “Each medical environment has distinct clinical requirements and needs a customized checklist that fits the team’s workflow and structure [210].”

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 70 · Cited by 133

Authors
Burian, B. K., Clebone, A., Dismukes, K., & Ruskin, K. J.
Affiliations
  • Ames Research Center (US)
  • University of Chicago (US)
Corresponding author
  • Burian, Barbara K.
  • Dismukes, Key
Venue
Anesthesia & Analgesia
Published
2018-01
Volume
126
Issue
1
Pages
223-232
ISSN
0003-2999 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2742049669
Cited by
133
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 1
FWCI
3.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Anesthesia & Analgesia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Hospital Admissions and Outcomes
Keywords
checklist design, checklist development, patient safety, perioperative care, operating room, critical events, human factors, workflow integration, team structure
MeSH terms
Humans, Operating Rooms, Workflow, Checklist, Patient Safety

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