Abstract 259: Pre-Procedure Checklist and Morning Huddle as Part of Patient Evaluation for Cardiac Catheterisation

Abstract

Background: World Health Organization (WHO) Surgical Safety Checklist had a significant impact on surgical outcomes(1). In 2009, The United Kingdom National Patient Safety Agency required the use of this checklist(2). A pre procedure checklist for central venous line placements was one of the first commonly used checklists, and since then, the concept has been expanded to include venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, patient discharge, and many more(3). In 2016, Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) published a best practices consensus statement Update, which included a pre-procedure checklist for cardiac catheterizations(4). Objectives: The goals of the project were two-fold. First, to formalize the pre-procedure evaluation of patients referred to the cardiac catheterization laboratory, and second, to introduce a ‘Morning Huddle’ for all team members. The huddle is directed by a physician and includes a brief patient history and procedural plan to ensure everyone has a clear understanding of the procedure indication, patient specific risks, and procedural equipment needed. It would also provide an opportunity for group questions or to raise concerns. Methods: Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ) was used with permission from University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, to assess the attitudes towards safety of the staff working at the cardiac catheterization laboratory, as well as the general cardiology fellows. Cardiology fellows were provided with pre-catheterization checklist, adapted from the SCAI best practices consensus statement Update, as well as an outline for the format of the ‘Morning Huddle’. Results: The total number of responses obtained were 23. The survey revealed that the majority of the staff felt that the physicians and nurses worked in a well-coordinated team (95.7%, 22 of 23). Almost 26% (6 of 23) of the staff interviewed reported difficulty in speaking up when a problem was perceived. Communication breakdown was not noted to be a problem by the majority interviewed, although a small percentage did disagree (26%, 6 of 23). Conclusions: Although the survey was overwhelmingly positive at baseline, room for improvement was noted. It is anticipated that the intervention will allow the staff an opportunity to speak up when a problem is perceived, and improve communication, by empowering the team during the ‘Morning Huddle’. Our overarching goal is to improve the safety climate in the catheterization laboratory.