The frequency and significance of discrepancies in the surgical count

Annals of Surgery

Volumn 248, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 337-341

  Greenberg, Caprice C ^a,b   Regenbogen, Scott E ^c,d   Lipsitz, Stuart R ^a   Diaz Flores, Rafael ^a,c   Gawande, Atul A ^a,c  

^a BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^c MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^d DANA FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ELECTIVE SURGERY; FEMALE; GENERAL SURGERY; HUMAN; MALE; MEDICAL PERSONNEL; NEEDLE; OPERATING ROOM; PHYSICIAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RETAINED INSTRUMENT; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SURGICAL EQUIPMENT; SURGICAL ERROR; SURGICAL INSTRUMENT; SURGICAL SPONGE; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TRAINING; EVALUATION; FOREIGN BODY; MEDICAL ERROR; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PEROPERATIVE CARE; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAFETY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICS; SURGERY;

ADULT; EVALUATION STUDIES AS TOPIC; FEMALE; FOREIGN BODIES; HUMANS; INTRAOPERATIVE CARE; MALE; MEDICAL ERRORS; MIDDLE AGED; OPERATING ROOMS; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAFETY MANAGEMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, OPERATIVE; SURGICAL SPONGES;

EID: 49849091866     PISSN: 00034932     EISSN: 15281140     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318181c9a3     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Recommended practices for sponge, sharp and instrument counts. 2004 Standards, Recommended Practices and Guidelines. Denver: AORN 2004;229-234.
2. Cima RR, Kollengode A, Garnatz J, et al. Incidence and characteristics of potential and actual retained foreign object events in surgical patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2008. In press. Available at: http://www.journalacs.org.
3. Romano PS, Geppert JJ, Davies S, et al. A national profile of patient safety in U.S. hospitals. Health Aff (Millwood). 2003;22:154-166.
4. Gawande AA, Studdert DM, Orav EJ, et al. Risk factors for retained instruments and sponges after surgery. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:229-235.
5. Lincourt AE, Harrell A, Cristiano J, et al. Retained foreign bodies after surgery. J Surg Res. 2007;138:170-174.
6. Bani-Hani KE, Gharaibeh KA, Yaghan RJ. Retained surgical sponges (gossypiboma). Asian J Surg. 2005;28:109-115.
7. Gonzalez-Ojeda A, Rodriguez-Alcantar DA, Arenas-Marquez H, et al. Retained foreign bodies following intra-abdominal surgery. Hepatogas- troenterology. 1999;46:808-812.
8. Jones SA. The foreign body problem after laparotomy. Personal experiences. Am J Surg. Dec 1971;122:785-786.
9. Kaiser CW, Friedman S, Spurling KP, et al. The retained surgical sponge. Ann Surg. 1996;224:79 -84.
10. Egorova NN, Moskowitz A, Glejins A, et al. Managing the prevention of retained surgical instruments: What is the value of counting? Ann Surg. 2008;247:13-18.
11. Beyea SC. Counting instruments and sponges. Aorn J. Aug 2003;78: 290-294.
12. Christian CK, Gustafson ML, Roth EM, et al. A prospective study of patient safety in the operating room. Surgery. 2006;139:159-173.
13. Dierks MM, Christian CK, Roth EM, et al. Healthcare safety: the impact of disabling 'safety' protocols. IEEE SMC Transactions-Part A: Systems and Humans. 2004;34:693-698.
14. Gibbs VC. Patient safety practices in the operating room; correct-site surgery and no thing left behind. Surg Clin North Am. 2005;85:1307-1319.
15. Greenberg CC, Diaz-Flores R, Lipsitz SR, et al. Bar-coding surgical sponges to improve safety: A randomized-controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2008;247:612-616.
16. Available at:http://www.surgicountmedical.com. Accessed 11/5/2007.
17. Available at:http://www.rfsurg.com. Accessed 11/5/2007.
18. Available at:http://www.clearcount.com. Accessed 11/5/2007.