Clinical review: Checklists - translating evidence into practice
نویسندگان
چکیده
Checklists are common tools used in many industries. Unfortunately, their adoption in the field of medicine has been limited to equipment operations or part of specific algorithms. Yet they have tremendous potential to improve patient outcomes by democratizing knowledge and helping ensure that all patients receive evidence-based best practices and safe high-quality care. Checklist adoption has been slowed by a variety of factors, including provider resistance, delays in knowledge dissemination and integration, limited methodology to guide development and maintenance, and lack of effective technical strategies to make them available and easy to use. In this article, we explore some of the principles and possible strategies to further develop and encourage the implementation of checklists into medical practice. We describe different types of checklists using examples and explore the benefits they offer to improve care. We suggest methods to create checklists and offer suggestions for how we might apply them, using some examples from our own experience, and finally, offer some possible directions for future research.
منابع مشابه
It’s More Complicated than That; Comment on “Translating Evidence into Healthcare Policy and Practice: Single Versus Multi-Faceted Implementation Strategies – Is There a Simple Answer to a Complex Question?”
In this commentary the findings from a systematic review that concluded there is no compelling evidence to suggest that implementing complicated, multi-faceted interventions is more effective than simple, single component interventions to changing healthcare professional’s behaviour are considered through the lens of Harvey and Kitson’s editorial. Whilst an appealing conclusion, it is one that ...
متن کاملIt Is Not That Simple nor Compelling!; Comment on “Translating Evidence Into Healthcare Policy and Practice: Single Versus Multi-faceted Implementation Strategies – Is There a Simple Answer to a Complex Question?”
Healthcare decisions are often made under pressure, with varying levels of information in a changing clinical context. With limited resources and a focus on improving patient outcomes, healthcare managers and health professionals strive to implement both clinical and cost-effective care. However, the gap between research evidence and health policy/clinical practice persists despite our best eff...
متن کامل“Horses for Courses”; Comment on “Translating Evidence Into Healthcare Policy and Practice: Single Versus Multi-Faceted Implementation Strategies – Is There a Simple Answer to a Complex Question?”
This commentary considers the vexed question of whether or not we should be spending time and resources on using multifaceted interventions to undertake implementation of evidence in healthcare. A review of systematic reviews has suggested that simple interventions may be just as effective as those taking a multifaceted approach. Taking cognisance of the Promoting Action on Research Implementat...
متن کاملTranslating Evidence into Healthcare Policy and Practice: Single Versus Multi-Faceted Implementation Strategies – Is There a Simple Answer to a Complex Question?
How best to achieve the translation of research evidence into routine policy and practice remains an enduring challenge in health systems across the world. The complexities associated with changing behaviour at an individual, team, organizational and system level have led many academics to conclude that tailored, multifaceted strategies provide the most effective approach to knowledge translati...
متن کاملDisease Control Priorities Third Edition: Time to Put a Theory of Change Into Practice; Comment on “Disease Control Priorities Third Edition Is Published: A Theory of Change Is Needed for Translating Evidence to Health Policy”
The Disease Control Priorities program (DCP) has pioneered the use of economic evidence in health. The theory of change (ToC) put forward by Norheim is a further welcome and necessary step towards translating DCP evidence into better priority setting in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We also agree that institutionalising evidence for informed priority-setting processes is crucial. Un...
متن کامل