The use of checklists in the intensive care unit: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Despite the extensive volume of research published on checklists in the intensive care unit (ICU), no review has been published on the broader role of checklists within the intensive care unit, their implementation and validation, and the recommended clinical context for their use. Accordingly, a scoping review was necessary to map the current literature and to guide future research on intensive care checklists. This review focuses on what checklists are currently used, how they are used, process of checklist development and implementation, and outcomes associated with checklist use. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases was conducted, followed by a grey literature search. The abstracts of the identified studies were screened. Full texts of relevant articles were reviewed, and the references of included studies were subsequently screened for additional relevant articles. Details of the study characteristics, study design, checklist intervention, and outcomes were extracted. RESULTS: Our search yielded 2046 studies, of which 167 were selected for further analysis. Checklists identified in these studies were categorised into the following types: rounding checklists; delirium screening checklists; transfer and handover checklists; central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) prevention checklists; airway management checklists; and other. Of 72 significant clinical outcomes reported, 65 were positive, five were negative, and two were mixed. Of 122 significant process of care outcomes reported, 114 were positive and eight were negative. CONCLUSIONS: Checklists are commonly used in the intensive care unit and appear in many clinical guidelines. Delirium screening checklists and rounding checklists are well implemented and validated in the literature. Clinical and process of care outcomes associated with checklist use are predominantly positive. Future research on checklists in the intensive care unit should focus on establishing clinical guidelines for checklist types and processes for ongoing modification and improvements using post-intervention data.

Smartphone use and perceptions of their benefit and detriment within Australian anaesthetic practice.

The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the perceptions of Australian anaesthetists in relation to smartphone use within anaesthetic practice. In particular, we aimed to assess the frequency of smartphone use, the types and number of smartphone applications used, how reliant anaesthetists perceive themselves to be on smartphones and whether they perceive them to be a factor that aids or distracts from their practice. Secondly, we assessed whether there is an association between the type, frequency, reliance and perceptions of smartphone use and the years of experience as an anaesthetist. A 24-item questionnaire addressing these questions was created and distributed to an email list of credentialled anaesthetists in Melbourne, Australia. A total of 113 consultant anaesthetists who practise at 55 hospitals in Melbourne completed the questionnaire. Our results suggest that the majority of anaesthetists are using smartphones regularly in their practice. About 74% of respondents agreed that they rely on their smartphone for their work. We found that respondents were more likely to rely on smartphones and consider them to aid patient safety than to consider them a distraction. This phenomenon was particularly apparent in those who had been a consultant anaesthetist for less than three years. Furthermore, those who had been a consultant anaesthetist for less than three years were more likely to have more smartphone apps relating to anaesthetics, use them more often and rely on them to a greater degree. Our results highlight the ubiquitous and perceived useful nature of smartphones in anaesthetic practice.