This article is reprinted with permission from the British Cardiovascular Society and Dr. Tom Cahill. Copyright is the property of BCS, which can be found online at http://www.bcs.com.
Note: British spellings have been retained in this article.
The two checklists can be downloaded in PDF format at http://tinyurl.com/BCS-Cahill (or http://www.bcs.com/pages/page_box_contents.asp?PageID=920).
The BCS cath lab checklist seeks to guide staff in the performance of key safety checks for patients undergoing invasive procedures in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory. The checklist also provides a framework for conducting a “team brief” for all members of the clinical team.
The basic design reflects the core activities of cardiac catheterization, coronary intervention, pacing, and electrophysiology. The form can, however, be customised to allow flexibility in focus, content, and use (see below). The fixed content is our interpretation of the balance between being comprehensive and maintaining ease of use.
There are two versions available: a standalone checklist for use in the catheter laboratory starting immediately pre-procedure (Figure 1) and an integrated checklist, which covers patient preparation on the ward areas as well as the procedural phase (Figure 2). The integrated checklist does not seek to replace a formal integrated care pathway, but is a distinct tool with specific emphasis on improving patient safety in the catheter laboratory environment.
The two checklists can be downloaded in PDF format at http://tinyurl.com/BCS-Cahill (or http://www.bcs.com/pages/page_box_contents.asp?PageID=920). Once saved to your computer, you will be able to perform additional modification — most sections of the form offer one or more boxes where users can “insert additional question here if required.” You can modify the text in these fields to create a bespoke checklist (but with a consistent look and feel) that better reflects local needs and priorities.
Our guidance on implementation and practical use is intentionally brief — what works in one hospital may create problems in another. We suggest appointing a local checklist champion who can oversee customisation, maintain “version control,” and guide implementation on the ground. The content of the local form may evolve over time, with sequential modification in response to practical experience. It may be best to defer a formal print run until the ideal content is agreed.
Electronic versions of both checklists will follow shortly, to allow “on-screen” completion using a tablet or computer and facilitating direct upload to a patient’s electronic record.
We would appreciate feedback on your experience.
Dr. Tom Cahill & Dr. Rod Stables May 2014
Dr. Cahill can be contacted at email@example.com.