Prevalence of adverse events in hip and knee arthroplasties following the implementation of surgical checklists
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.7658.4558Keywords:
Perioperative Care; Medical Errors; Patient Safety; Arthroplasty; Checklist; Outcome and Process Assessment Health CareAbstract
Objective: to identify the prevalence of adverse events in patients undergoing hip and knee arthroplasties following the implementation of surgical checklists. Method: an evaluative study, based on effect analysis, conducted over three periods: pre- (0- 2010) and post- intervention (I- 2013; II- 2016), with retrospective consultation of a simple random sample of 291 medical records between November 2020 and March 2022. The Canadian Adverse Events Study and Global Trigger Tool forms were used to track and confirm adverse events. Cases were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics; p-values ≤ 0.05 indicated significance. Results: in the post-implementation periods of surgical checklists, a reduction was observed in the frequency of patients affected by two or more events, from 27.8% to 11.3% (p = 0.002), and in the overall prevalence, from 63.9% to 36.1% (p < 0.001). A decrease in the prevalence of patients affected by urinary retention (33% to 3.1%; p < 0.001) and hemorrhage (9.3% to 0%; p = 0.012) was also noted. There was an increase in the prevalence of skin lesions, from 2.1% to 10.3% (p = 0.043). Conclusion: there was a reduction in the overall prevalence and frequency of adverse events in patients undergoing arthroplasty following the implementation of surgical checklists.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
RLAE’s authorship concept is based on the substantial contribution by each of the individuals listed as authors, mainly in terms of conceiving and planning the research project, collecting or analyzing and interpreting data, writing and critical review. Indication of authors’ names under the article title is limited to six. If more, authors are listed on the online submission form under Acknowledgements. The possibility of including more than six authors will only be examined on multicenter studies, considering the explanations presented by the authors.Including names of authors whose contribution does not fit into the above criteria cannot be justified. Those names can be included in the Acknowledgements section.
Authors are fully responsible for the concepts disseminated in their manuscripts, which do not necessarily reflect the editors’ and editorial board’s opinion.