Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ASCO Annual Meeting 2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Keep up to date with all the top stories and latest evidence with our hub page, including official congress videos and expert takeaways.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Patient Safety in Surgery
Published in: Patient Safety in Surgery 1/2009

Open Access 01-12-2009 | Editorial

The 5th anniversary of the "Universal Protocol": pitfalls and pearls revisited

Authors: Philip F Stahel, Philip S Mehler, Ted J Clarke, Jeffrey Varnell

Published in: Patient Safety in Surgery | Issue 1/2009

Login to get access

Excerpt

The publication date of this editorial marks the 5th anniversary of the "Universal Protocol" which became a mandatory quality standard introduced by the Joint Commission on July 1, 2004 [1‐3]. The Universal Protocol – designed to ensure correct patient identity, correct scheduled procedure, and correct surgical site – consists of the following three components:
1.
A pre-procedure verification process.
 
2.
Surgical site marking.
 
3.
Surgical "time out" immediately prior to starting the procedure.
 
…
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Norton E: Implementing the universal protocol hospital-wide. AORN J. 2007, 85 (6): 1187-1197. 10.1016/j.aorn.2007.03.002.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Wrong site surgery and the Universal Protocol. Bull Am Coll Surg. 2006, 91 (11): 63-
4.
5.
Edwards P: Ensuring correct site surgery. J Perioper Pract. 2008, 18 (4): 168-171.PubMed
6.
Harrington JW: Surgical time outs in a combat zone. AORN J. 2009, 89 (3): 535-537. 10.1016/j.aorn.2008.07.016.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Hunter JG: Extend the universal protocol, not just the surgical time out. J Am Coll Surg. 2007, 205 (4): e4-5. 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.06.318.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Seiden SC, Barach P: Wrong-side/wrong-site, wrong-procedure, and wrong-patient adverse events: are they preventable?. Arch Surg. 2006, 141 (9): 931-939. 10.1001/archsurg.141.9.931.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Jhawar BS, Mitsis D, Duggal N: Wrong-sided and wrong-level neurosurgery: a national survey. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007, 7 (5): 467-472. 10.3171/SPI-07/11/467.CrossRefPubMed
10.
11.
Clarke JR, Johnston J, Martindell DP, Blanco M: Wrong-site surgery: can we prevent it?. Adv Surg. 2008, 42: 13-31. 10.1016/j.yasu.2008.03.004.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Catalano K: Have you heard? The saga of wrong site surgery continues. Plast Surg Nurs. 2008, 28 (1): 41-44.CrossRefPubMed
13.
van Hille PT: Patient safety with particular reference to wrong site surgery – a presidential commentary. Br J Neurosurg. 2009, 23 (2): 109-110. 10.1080/02688690902881112.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Shinde S, Carter JA: Wrong site neurosurgery – still a problem. Anaesthesia. 2009, 64 (1): 1-2. 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2008.05825.x.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Wong DA, Herndon JH, Canale ST, Brooks RL, Hunt TR, Epps HR, Fountain SS, Albanese SA, Johanson NA: Medical errors in orthopaedics – results of an AAOS member survey. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009, 91 (3): 547-557. 10.2106/JBJS.G.01439.CrossRefPubMed
16.
17.
Meinberg EG, Stern PJ: Incidence of wrong-site surgery among hand surgeons. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003, 85-A (2): 193-197.PubMed
18.
Mody MG, Nourbakhsh A, Stahl DL, Gibbs M, Alfawareh M, Garges KJ: The prevalence of wrong level surgery among spine surgeons. Spine. 2008, 33: 194-198. 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31816043d1.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Kwaan MR, Studdert DM, Zinner MJ, Gawande AA: Incidence, patterns, and prevention of wrong-site surgery. Arch Surg. 2006, 141 (4): 353-357. 10.1001/archsurg.141.4.353. discussion 357–358.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Altpeter T, Luckhardt K, Lewis JN, Harken AH, Polk HC: Expanded surgical time out: a key to real-time data collection and quality improvement. J Am Coll Surg. 2007, 204: 527-532. 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.01.009.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Mitchell P, Nicholson CL, Jenkins A: Side errors in neurosurgery. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2006, 148: 1289-1292. 10.1007/s00701-006-1041-9.CrossRef
22.
Cronen G, Ringus V, Sigle G, Ryu J: Sterility of surgical site marking. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005, 87 (10): 2193-2195. 10.2106/JBJS.E.00293.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Cullan DBn, Wongworawat MD: Sterility of the surgical site marking between the ink and the epidermis. J Am Coll Surg. 2007, 205 (2): 319-321. 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.02.029.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Rooney J, Khoo OK, Higgs AR, Small TJ, Bell S: Surgical site marking does not affect sterility. ANZ J Surg. 2008, 78 (8): 688-689. 10.1111/j.1445-2197.2008.04618.x.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Zhao X, Chen J, Fang XQ, Fan SW: Surgical site marking will not affect sterility of the surgical field. Med Hypotheses. 2009,
Metadata
Title
The 5th anniversary of the "Universal Protocol": pitfalls and pearls revisited
Authors
Philip F Stahel
Philip S Mehler
Ted J Clarke
Jeffrey Varnell
Publication date
01-12-2009
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Patient Safety in Surgery / Issue 1/2009
Electronic ISSN: 1754-9493
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-9493-3-14

Other articles of this Issue 1/2009

Patient Safety in Surgery 1/2009 Go to the issue

Letter to the Editor

The WHO checklist: a global tool to prevent errors in surgery

Review

Building an immune-mediated coagulopathy consensus: early recognition and evaluation to enhance post-surgical patient safety

Review

Critical appraisal of meta-analyses: an introductory guide for the practicing surgeon

Editorial

Clarifying "never events" and introducing "always events"

Research

Is the intraosseous access route fast and efficacious compared to conventional central venous catheterization in adult patients under resuscitation in the emergency department? A prospective observational pilot study

Review

Restricted duty hours for surgeons and impact on residents quality of life, education, and patient care: a literature review