Background The Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) is a patient safety tool shown to reduce mortality and to improve teamwork and adherence with perioperative safety practices. The results of the original pilot work were published 10 years ago. This study aimed to determine the contemporary prevalence and predictors of SSC use globally. Methods Pooled data from the GlobalSurg and Surgical Outcomes studies were analysed to describe SSC use in 2014–2016. The primary exposure was the Human Development Index (HDI) of the reporting country, and the primary outcome was reported SSC use. A generalized estimating equation, clustering by facility, was used to determine differences in SSC use by patient, facility and national characteristics. Results A total of 85 957 patients from 1464 facilities in 94 countries were included. On average, facilities used the SSC in 75·4 per cent of operations. Compared with very high HDI, SSC use was less in low HDI countries (odds ratio (OR) 0·08, 95 per cent c.i. 0·05 to 0·12). The SSC was used less in urgent compared with elective operations in low HDI countries (OR 0·68, 0·53 to 0·86), but used equally for urgent and elective operations in very high HDI countries (OR 0·96, 0·87 to 1·06). SSC use was lower for obstetrics and gynaecology versus abdominal surgery (OR 0·91, 0·85 to 0·98) and where the common or official language was not one of the WHO official languages (OR 0·30, 0·23 to 0·39). Conclusion Worldwide, SSC use is generally high, but significant variability exists. Implementation and dissemination strategies must be developed to address this variability.

Clinical errors due to human mistakes are estimated to result in 400,000 preventable deaths per year. Strategies to improve patient safety often rely on healthcare workers’ ability to speak up with concerns. This becomes difficult during critical decision-making as a result of conflicting opinions and power differentials, themes underrepresented in many interprofessional initiatives. These elements are prominent in our interprofessional initiative, namely Crucial Conversations. We sought to evaluate this initiative as an interprofessional learning (IPL) opportunity for pre-licensure senior healthcare students, as a way to foster interprofessional collaboration, and as a method of empowering students to vocalise their concerns. The attributes of this IPL opportunity were evaluated using the Points for Interprofessional Education Score (PIPES). The University of the West of England Interprofessional Questionnaire was administered before and after the course to assess changes in attitudes towards IPL, relationships, interactions, and teamwork. Crucial Conversations strongly attained the principles of interprofessional education on the PIPES instrument. A total of 38 volunteers completed the 16 hours of training: 15 (39%) medical rehabilitation, 10 (26%) medicine, 7 (18%) pharmacy, 5 (13%) nursing, and 1 (2%) dentistry. Baseline attitude scores were positive for three of the four subscales, all of which improved post-intervention. Interprofessional interactions remained negative possibly due to the lack of IPL opportunities along the learning continuum, the hidden curriculum, as well as the stereotyping and hierarchical structures in today’s healthcare environment preventing students from maximising the techniques learned by use of this interprofessional initiative.

This study assesses the survival in patients undergoing metastasectomy for leiomyosarcoma (LMS) and compares the outcomes by the site of metastasectomy. We conducted a systematic review and pooled survival analysis of patients undergoing metastasectomy for LMS. Survival was compared between sites of metastasectomy. We identified 23 studies including 573 patients undergoing metastasectomy for LMS. The pooled median survival was 59.6 months (95% CI 33.3 to 66.0). The pooled median survival was longest for lung metastasectomy (72.8 months 95% CI 63.0 to 82.5), followed by liver (34.8 months 95% CI 22.3 to 47.2), spine (14.1 months 95% CI 8.6 to 19.7), and brain (14 months 95% CI 6.7 to 21.3). Two studies compared the survival outcomes between patients who did, versus who did not undergo metastasectomy; both demonstrated a significantly improved survival with metastasectomy. We conclude that surgery is currently being utilized for LMS metastases to the lung, liver, spine, and brain with acceptable survival. Although low quality, comparative studies support a survival benefit with metastasectomy. In the absence of randomized studies, it is impossible to determine whether the survival benefit associated with metastasectomy is due to careful patient selection rather than a surgical advantage; limited data were included about patient selection.

This study aims to understand patient factors associated with refusal of surgery for nonmetastatic colorectal cancer and the associated cancer-specific mortality. Patients diagnosed with nonmetastatic colorectal cancer between 2004 and 2015 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program were included. A total of 152,731 (99.4%) patients underwent surgery, and 983 (0.6%) refused surgery. Independent predictors of refusal included male sex, older age, minority race, single relationship status, being uninsured, more recent date of diagnosis, having an earlier stage of diagnosis, and rectal versus colon cancer. Refusing surgery for nonmetastatic colorectal cancer increased cancer-specific mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 5.10, 95% confidence interval 4.62–5.62). Most patients diagnosed with nonmetastatic colorectal cancer undergo surgery in the United States. However, refusal of surgery is increasing and associated with higher cancer-specific mortality. A better understanding of surgical decision making in colorectal cancer is urgently needed.