Table 4

Survey responses by perioperative staff role#
Provider n = 44 Resident n = 30 Nursing Staff n = 18 P-value
Readbacks significantly reduce verbal communication errors and improve patient safety 5 (4–5) 4 (4–5) 5 (5–5) 0.01
Readbacks are currently being used appropriately by the surgical staff in our hospital 4 (3–4) 4 (3–4) 4 (3–5) 0.42
I would attend a short training module on readbacks 4 (4–5) 3 (2–4) 5 (5–5) <0.001
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) 5 (5–5) 0.01
… there is a handoff of a surgical patient from the care of one provider to another 4 (4–5) 4 (4–5) 5 (5–5) 0.12
… used to count and verify surgical instruments and other items 5 (4–5) 4 (3–5) 5 (4–5) 0.08
… there are multiple perioperative tasks 5 (4–5) 4 (4–5) 5 (4–5) 0.41
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) 3 (1–4) 0.14
… the availability of time to perform readback statements 4 (2–4) 4 (2–4) 5 (4–5) <0.001
… general reluctance of parts of the surgical team to use readbacks 3 (2.5-4) 3 (3–4) 4 (3–5) 0.04
… the amount of training for staff that will be needed to implement readbacks 3 (2–3) 2 (2–3) 3 (2–4) 0.15
… the difficulty in deciding what type of communication should constitute a readback 4 (2–4) 3 (2–4) 4 (3–5) 0.27

#The “provider” group includes attending physicians and mid-level providers (CRNAs). The “resident” group refers to physicians in training, while “nursing staff” includes circulating nurses and scrub technicians. Data are shown as medians and interquartile ranges.

Prabhakar et al.

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

Open Data