Table 1

Overall responses to the survey (n = 92)
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral / Don’t Know Agree Strongly Agree
Readbacks in the surgical setting would significantly reduce verbal communication errors and improve patient safety 1 (1.1 %) 3 (3.3 %) 11 (12.0 %) 25 (27.2 %) 52 (56.5 %)
Readbacks are currently being used appropriately by the surgical staff in our hospital 4 (4.4 %) 11 (12.0 %) 17 (18.5 %) 47 (51.1 %) 13 (14.1 %)
I would personally be willing to attend a short training module on readbacks should the concept be formally implemented at my institution 7 (7.6 %) 8 (8.7 %) 15 (16.3 %) 24 (26.1 %) 38 (41.3 %)
Readbacks would be helpful in reducing verbal communication errors when…
… a request is made to carry out an important task that has implications on safety of the patient 1 (1.1 %) 4 (4.4 %) 2 (2.2 %) 25 (27.2 %) 60 (65.2 %)
… there is a handoff of a surgical patient from the care of one provider to another 2 (2.2 %) 2 (2.2 %) 12 (13.0 %) 30 (32.6 %) 46 (50.0 %)
… used to count and verify surgical instruments and other items 1 (1.1 %) 2 (2.2 %) 10 (10.9 %) 27 (29.4 %) 52 (56.5 %)
… there are multiple perioperative tasks 0 (0 %) 4 (4.4 %) 14 (15.2 %) 29 (31.5 %) 45 (48.9 %)
Significant barriers to implementation of readbacks in the perioperative setting include …
… the lack of a general “safety culture” in the surgical department 35 (38.0) 25 (27.2) 13 (14.1) 15 (16.3) 4 (4.4)
… the availability of time to perform readback statements 6 (6.5 %) 17 (18.5 %) 12 (13.0 %) 37 (40.2 %) 20 (21.7 %)
… general reluctance of parts of the surgical team to use readbacks 8 (8.7 %) 13 (14.1 %) 27 (29.4 %) 28 (30.4 %) 16 (17.4 %)
… the amount of training for staff that will be needed to implement readbacks 15 (16.3 %) 31 (33.7 %) 27 (29.4 %) 16 (17.4 %) 3 (3.3 %)

Prabhakar et al.

Prabhakar et al. BMC Surgery 2012 12:8   doi:10.1186/1471-2482-12-8

Open Data