The WHO Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) can improve patient outcomes through checks and enhancing the safety climate, provided the team engage. Patients are central to that team and may be awake during part or all of many procedures. Their greater inclusion in the SSC process could enhance its checking objectives by using patient knowledge of details relevant to proposed procedures, and its objective of improving culture by emphasising patient identity, seeing patients as individuals rather than items on a production line. We aimed to evaluate SSC use, including clinicians’ and patients’ perspectives, in cardiothoracic operating rooms (CTORs) and cardiac catheterisation laboratories (CCLs), and to identify opportunities to refine its use in these spaces.

We undertook a multimethod study based on positivism and interpretivism, with evaluation of SSC administration and interviews. We evaluated SSC administration during 20 Sign Ins, 20 Time Outs and 20 Sign Outs in CTORs and 20 Time Outs in CCLs (11 coronary angiography and 9 electrophysiology cases) using the WHO Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scale (WHOBARS, 1–7, where higher scores indicate better practice). We additionally interviewed 10 clinicians and 17 patients about their experiences and perceptions of safety and SSC use. We undertook thematic analysis of interview data.

CTORs and CCLs in an Auckland public hospital.

We observed 171 clinicians during 20 cases. We interviewed 10 clinicians (Pakeha/New Zealand/European n=6; male n=5; doctor n=5). We interviewed 17 patients (Pakeha/New Zealand/European n=12; male n=10; age range 45–81 years).

In CTORs, the SSC was used in full: median (IQR) WHOBARS score was 5.9 (5.2, 6.5). In CCLs, its use differed between electrophysiology and angiography CCLs: median (IQR) WHOBARS score was 4.50 (3.2, 5.6). In both CTORs and CCLs, high levels of carefulness and respect between team members were observed. Clinicians described the SSC as valuable and identified context-related reasons for variations in its use. Patients wanted to feel cared for and respected (including culturally). The SSC contributed positively to this. Clinicians expressed reservations about increasing patients’ involvement with the SSC. However, patients’ comments supported their increased engagement in the SSC process (including establishing their preferred names).

The SSC is used at Auckland City Hospital with some variation between services and with high levels of carefulness and respect. The SSC increased patients’ sense of being cared for. With modification (eg, by verifying their preferred name during the Sign In phase), the SSC could enhance patients’ perception of being seen as individuals, their cultural safety and the safety climate in operating and procedure rooms, and hence potentially improve patient outcomes. Our findings reinforce the value of regular evaluation and context-relevant modification of SSC for its effective use.