Author
Listed:
- Patrícia Scotini Freitas
- Renata Cristina de Campos Pereira Silveira
- Alexander Michael Clark
- Cristina Maria Galvão
Abstract
Aims and objectives To analyse the evidence reported in the literature concerning the surgical count process for surgical sponges, surgical instruments and sharps and to identify knowledge gaps for future research on the surgical count process. Background The surgical count process stands out among the practices advocated by the World Health Organization to ensure surgical safety. The literature indicates that this practice should be performed in all surgical processes. However, surgical items are still retained. Design Integrative review. Methods The literature search was conducted in the PubMed, CINAHL and LILACS databases and included studies on the surgical count process published in English, Spanish and Portuguese from January 2003–December 2013. Results A total of 28 primary studies were included in the sample, allowing the knowledge on the surgical count process to be summarised and grouped into three categories: risk factors for retained surgical items, how the surgical count process should be performed in the intraoperative period and the accompanying technologies that collaborate to improving the manual count process. Conclusions The correct implementation of the surgical count process by the perioperative nurse may contribute to preventing retained surgical items, thereby improving surgical patient safety. Relevance to clinical practice Nurses can use this review to assist in decision‐making directed towards preparing, updating and implementing a reliable system for the surgical count process based on recent evidence because the perioperative nurse plays a key role in the implementation of this practice in health services.
Suggested Citation
Patrícia Scotini Freitas & Renata Cristina de Campos Pereira Silveira & Alexander Michael Clark & Cristina Maria Galvão, 2016.
"Surgical count process for prevention of retained surgical items: an integrative review,"
Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(13-14), pages 1835-1847, July.
Handle:
RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:25:y:2016:i:13-14:p:1835-1847
DOI: 10.1111/jocn.13216
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:25:y:2016:i:13-14:p:1835-1847. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.