We are getting audited pretty heavily on conducting proper timeouts. One point of emphasis is doing a new timeout before any new procedure. For example in urology if we are doing a cysto with stent placement followed by ESWL we have to timeout before the cysto and again before the lithotripsy.
I want to propose that we do subsequent timeouts by exception. The only elements required in a timeout per Universal protocol are patient identification, procedure, and anatomical site. I want to suggest that subsequent timeouts cover only those three items plus anything that changed from the original timeout. Why do we need to repeat the prophylactic antibiotic, that the patient has SCDs on, or the fire risk score if they haven’t changed?
does this make sense? How is it handled in your OR?
Featured Replies
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later.
If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
We are getting audited pretty heavily on conducting proper timeouts. One point of emphasis is doing a new timeout before any new procedure. For example in urology if we are doing a cysto with stent placement followed by ESWL we have to timeout before the cysto and again before the lithotripsy.
I want to propose that we do subsequent timeouts by exception. The only elements required in a timeout per Universal protocol are patient identification, procedure, and anatomical site. I want to suggest that subsequent timeouts cover only those three items plus anything that changed from the original timeout. Why do we need to repeat the prophylactic antibiotic, that the patient has SCDs on, or the fire risk score if they haven’t changed?
does this make sense? How is it handled in your OR?