Table 3

Survey responses stratified by Department#
Anesthesia n = 24 Surgery n = 68 P-value
Readbacks would significantly reduce verbal communication errors and improve patient safety 5 (4–5) 5 (4–5) 0.10
Readbacks are currently being used appropriately by the surgical staff in our hospital 4 (3.5-4) 4 (3–4) 0.77
I would attend a short training module on readbacks should the concept be formally implemented 4 (3–5) 4 (3–5) 0.74
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 5 (4–5) 5 (4–5) 0.86
… there is a handoff of a surgical patient from the care of one provider to another 4.5 (4–5) 4.5 (4–5) 0.87
… used to count and verify surgical instruments and other items 5 (4–5) 5 (4–5) 0.07
… there are multiple perioperative tasks 4 (4–5) 4.5 (4–5) 0.86
Significant barriers to implementation of readbacks in the perioperative setting include …
… the lack of a general “safety culture” in the surgical department 2 (1–3) 2 (1–3) 0.84
… the availability of time to perform readback statements 4 (3–4) 4 (2–4) 0.54
… general reluctance of parts of the surgical team to use readbacks 4 (3–4) 3 (2–4) 0.07
… the amount of training for staff that will be needed to implement readbacks 2 (2–3) 3 (2–3) 0.13
… the difficulty in deciding what type of communication should constitute a readback 4 (2–4) 4 (2–4) 0.78

# Data are shown as medians and interquartile ranges.

Survey scale:

1 = strongly disagree; 2 = somewhat disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = somewhat agree; 5 = strongly agree.

Prabhakar et al.

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

Open Data