Skip to content
BY-NC-ND 3.0 license Open Access Published by De Gruyter Open Access May 30, 2010

Correct site surgery — are we up to standard?

  • Corinne Owers EMAIL logo , Emily Lees and Julian Roberts
From the journal Open Medicine


To examine the impact made on safe surgical practice by the introduction of correct site surgery documentation in a children’s hospital containing a surgical unit in South Yorkshire. A retrospective audit of randomly selected case notes of children attending the hospital for an ENT/Plastic surgery/Orthopaedic/General surgical procedure during a period in 2006 or 2008. Outcome measures included the total, correct and legible completion of correct site surgery documentation pre-operatively. Significant improvement was noted between the 2006 and 2008 audits in the amount of patients being correctly marked (33% vs. 91%), however there were no forms in either study that were fully and correctly completed. Legibility of the forms also improved markedly between the studies (33% vs. 98%). The completion of correct site surgery forms improved with greater publicisation of the forms, however the practicality of the numbers of people required to complete the forms needs to be reviewed. The international introduction of such forms will generate valuable data as to the future utility of these checklists.

[1] Kwaan MR, Studdert D, Zinner M et al. Incidence patterns and prevention of wrong site surgery. Arch Surg 2006;141:353–358 in Google Scholar PubMed

[2] Giles S, Rhodes P, Clements G et al. Experience of wrong site surgery and surgical marking practices among clinicians in the UK. Qual Saf Health Care 2006;15:363–368 in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[3] Patient Safety Agency (NPSA). Patient Safety Alert 06: Correct site surgery. 2 Mar 2005. Search in Google Scholar

[4] Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM et al. Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients: results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I. 1991. Qual Saf Health Care 2004;13(2):145–52 in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[5] Department of Health. An organisation with a memory. London, UK: Crown 2000. Search in Google Scholar

[6] Search in Google Scholar

[7] NHS Litigation Authority — Factsheet 3: information on claims. NHSLA Nov 2008. Search in Google Scholar

[8] World Health Organisation website. Search in Google Scholar

[9] Haynes AB, Weiser TG et al, for the Safe Surgery Saves Lives study Group. A Surgical Safety Checklist to Reduce Morbidity and Mortality in a Global Population. NEJM 2009; 360(5):491–499 in Google Scholar PubMed

[10] Foster M. Safety first, second and third. BMA news Sat May 9th 2009:9 Search in Google Scholar

[11] Ballal MS, Shah N, Ballal M et al. The Risk of Cross-Infection when Marking Surgical Patients Prior to Surgery — Review of Two Types of Marking Pens. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2007;89(3):226–228 in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[12] Catalier M. Patient safety task force addresses wrong site surgery. Arizona Nurse 2003:;col1 Search in Google Scholar

[13] ’dd’. Surgical errors surprisingly common. 29th June 2007. Search in Google Scholar

[14] Lyons R, Payne C, McCabe M, Fielder C. Information in practice — Legibility of doctors’ handwriting: a quantitative comparative study. BMJ 1998;317:863–864 10.1136/bmj.317.7162.863Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[15] Berwick DM, Winickoff DE. The truth about doctors’ handwriting: a prospective study. BMJ 1996;313: 1657–1658 10.1136/bmj.313.7072.1657Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

Published Online: 2010-5-30
Published in Print: 2010-8-1

© 2010 Versita Warsaw

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Downloaded on 31.3.2023 from
Scroll to top button