The adaption and implementation of the WHO surgical safety checklist for dental procedures

Objective: The objective of this study is to systematically adapt the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist for use in dentistry. Study design: Expert consensus panel. Setting, materials and methods: Using the 'WHO adaptation guidance', the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist was assessed and adapted by an expert panel using the Delphi technique. The newly developed checklist was piloted on a sample of 40 patients who were referred for the placement of dental implants at an implant referral centre. Results: The WHO Dental Safe Surgery Checklist was developed. Conclusions: This study presents an adaptation of the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist for use in dentistry. The whole practice team needs to be trained on the use of the WHO checklist (as per the WHO implementation guidelines). It needs systematic implementation, for every episode of dental surgery including dental extractions, minor oral surgery (MOS) and implant surgery, as part of a culture that is centred around patient safety. If appropriately implemented, this checklist could be a valuable safety barrier to mitigate the potential consequences of human error

The sac evolution imaging follow-up after endovascular aortic repair: An international expert opinion-based Delphi consensus study

Objective: Management of follow-up protocols after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) varies significantly between centers and is not standardized according to sac regression. By designing an international expert-based Delphi consensus, the study aimed to create recommendations on follow-up after EVAR according to sac evolution. Methods: Eight facilitators created appropriate statements regarding the study topic that were voted, using a 4-point Likert scale, by a selected panel of international experts using a three-round modified Delphi consensus process. Based on the experts' responses, only those statements reaching a grade A (full agreement ≥75%) or B (overall agreement ≥80% and full disagreement <5%) were included in the final document. Results: One-hundred and seventy-four participants were included in the final analysis, and each voted the initial 29 statements related to the definition of sac regression (Q1-Q9), EVAR follow-up (Q10-Q14), and the assessment and role of sac regression during follow-up (Q15-Q29). At the end of the process, 2 statements (6.9%) were rejected, 9 statements (31%) received a grade B consensus strength, and 18 (62.1%) reached a grade A consensus strength. Of 27 final statements, 15 (55.6%) were classified as grade I, whereas 12 (44.4%) were classified as grade II. Experts agreed that sac regression should be considered an important indicator of EVAR success and always be assessed during follow-up after EVAR. Conclusions: Based on the elevated strength and high consistency of this international expert-based Delphi consensus, most of the statements might guide the current clinical management of follow-up after EVAR according to the sac regression. Future studies are needed to clarify debated issues