The Frequency and Significance of Discrepancies in the Surgical Count
Authors:
- Caprice C. GreenbergCGCaprice C. Greenberg
- Scott E. RegenbogenSRScott E. Regenbogen
- Stuart R. LipsitzSLStuart R. Lipsitz
- Rafael Diaz-FloresRDRafael Diaz-Flores
- Atul A. GawandeAGAtul A. Gawande
- 1 August 2008
- journal article
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Annals of Surgery
- Vol. 248 (2) , 337-341
Abstract
To prospectively evaluate and accurately describe the rate and type of discrepancies encountered in the surgical count. Despite near-universal implementation of manual counting protocols for surgical instruments and sponges, incidents of retained sponges and instruments (RSI) persist. Retrospective analyses have shown that RSI are rare and most often involve final counts erroneously thought to be correct, leading some surgeons to question the value of counting. Crucial data regarding how often the surgical count successfully detects meaningful problems before the patient leaves the operating room is lacking. Trained physician-observers documented prospective field observations during 148 elective general surgery operations using standardized intake forms. Data collection focused on the performance of the counting protocols, and the frequency and outcomes of discrepancies (instances in which a subsequent count does not agree with the previous count). A mean of 16.6 counting episodes occurred per case, occupying 8.6 minutes per case. A total of 29 discrepancies involving sponges (45%), instruments (34%) or needles (21%) were observed among 19 (12.8%) operations. Most discrepancies indicated a misplaced item (59%) as opposed to a miscount (3%) or error in documentation (38%). Each discrepancy took on average 13 minutes to resolve. Counting activities after personnel changes were significantly more likely to involve a discrepancy than those for which the original team was present. One in 8 surgical cases involves an intraoperative discrepancy in the count. The majority of these discrepancies detect unaccounted-for sponges and instruments, which represent potential RSI. Thus, despite the recognized limitations of manual surgical counts, discrepancies should always prompt a thorough search and reconciliation process and never be ignored.Keywords
This publication has 9 references indexed in Scilit:
- Bar-coding Surgical Sponges To Improve SafetyAnnals of Surgery, 2008
- Managing the Prevention of Retained Surgical InstrumentsAnnals of Surgery, 2008
- Retained Foreign Bodies After SurgeryJournal of Surgical Research, 2007
- A prospective study of patient safety in the operating roomSurgery, 2006
- Patient Safety Practices in the Operating Room: Correct-Site Surgery and NoThing Left BehindSurgical Clinics of North America, 2005
- Retained Surgical Sponges (Gossypiboma)Asian Journal of Surgery, 2005
- A National Profile Of Patient Safety In U.S. HospitalsHealth Affairs, 2003
- Risk Factors for Retained Instruments and Sponges after SurgeryNew England Journal of Medicine, 2003
- The Retained Surgical SpongeAnnals of Surgery, 1996