typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Saving 28,000 Lives a Year263

The New Yorker is running a piece by Atul Gawande that starts by describing the everyday miracles that can be achieved in a modern medical intensive care unit, and ends by making a case for a simple and inexpensive way to save 28,000 lives per year in US ICUs, at a one-time cost of a few million dollars. This medical miracle is the checklist. Gawande details how modern medicine has spiraled into complexity beyond any person's ability to track — and nowhere more so than in the ICU. "A decade ago, Israeli scientists published a study in which engineers observed patient care in ICUs for twenty-four-hour stretches. They found that the average patient required a hundred and seventy-eight individual actions per day, ranging from administering a drug to suctioning the lungs, and every one of them posed risks. Remarkably, the nurses and doctors were observed to make an error in just one per cent of these actions — but that still amounted to an average of two errors a day with every patient. Intensive care succeeds only when we hold the odds of doing harm low enough for the odds of doing good to prevail. This is hard." The article goes on to profile a doctor named Peter Pronovost, who has extensively studied the ability of the simplest of complexity tamers — the checklist — to save lives in the ICU setting. Pronovost oversaw the introduction of checklists in the ICUs in hospitals across Michigan, and the result was a thousand lives saved in a year. That would translate to 28,000 per year if scaled nationwide, and Pronovost estimates the cost of doing that at $3 million. This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted. Saving 28,000 Lives a Year More Login Saving 28,000 Lives a Year Comments Filter: • The Greek god Nike said: (Score:5, Funny) on Monday December 08, 2008 @01:23AM (#26028993) Homepage Journal JUST DO IT! • Yes, and it's called LifeWings (Score:5, Interesting) on Monday December 08, 2008 @02:05AM (#26029343) Journal Pilots come and give talks in hospitals about how checklists significantly reduced air crashes in the USA, which it has. I saw this presentation at my hospital, but I'm not exactly sure if it is applicable it medicine. • Re:Yes, and it's called LifeWings (Score:4, Interesting) on Monday December 08, 2008 @03:43AM (#26029905) Homepage Journal A couple of days after our son was born I left my wife alone in her hospital room. She was sitting up to feed the baby but started slipping off the seat. She pressed the call button for a nurse but nobody came. Eventually she use the phone to call reception and they sent a security guard up to help her. The call light had been on outside her room but none of the nurses had decided to respond. There is a hopeless lack of process in the medical industry. They need a good solid dose of ISO9001 or CMMI. • Re:Yes, and it's called LifeWings (Score:5, Insightful) on Monday December 08, 2008 @04:43AM (#26030165) There is a hopeless lack of process in the medical industry. They need a good solid dose of ISO9001 or CMMI. Or simply more nurses. • Re: (Score:2, Insightful) Or just better ones? • Re:Yes, and it's called LifeWings (Score:5, Insightful) on Monday December 08, 2008 @05:37AM (#26030451) Nah. Mostly we could even do with worse ones. Many of the tasks of a nurse don't require special training. (Like handing that glas of water to the woman that can't reach it, making sure that guy doesnt faint on his way to the toilet and falls to the floor out of reach of the alarm button.) On the other hand, a ringing buzzer may also be a sign of an emergency. So every buzz (service and alarm are indistinguishable) has to be answered as soon as possible. So for five simultanious alarms, you need five people, not a single better one. • Re: (Score:2, Interesting) At least where I'm from, there are people to do those kinds of jobs. I believe the translation would be "nursing support staff", or something similar. • Re: (Score:3, Informative) In the states they're referred to as techs. Techs help bathe patients (and other general tasks), and will even do really minor medical stuff like take your blood pressure and temperature. • Re: (Score:3, Interesting) Yup, I was a medic in the Air Force. In military medicine (at least Air Force hospitals), the medics (EMT/LPN licensed) out number RN nurses about 5 to 1. Also, due to reduced personal liability (military won't hang you out to dry to lawyers, except in cases of obvious dereliction of duty), they pushed many tasks that civilian RN's are require for, onto the techs. And things were rather well run, when I was in ('89-'93). Even in the VA hospitals I worked in (part of OJT), things seemed to be doing pretty we • The VA system isn't broken, it's ignored. (Score:3, Insightful) I don't know if the system's broken down or is just being mis-managed but at one time, I preferred military care over civilian. The military/VA care process is still better organized and more streamlined than the horrendous kludge of the private system, but it's also under a remarkable strain from a flood of war casualties and the rapidly-aging population of Vietnam vets. Ironically, the VA system provides better, cheaper care because it does not suffer from many of the inefficiencies of a market-based heal • Re:The VA system isn't broken, it's ignored. (Score:4, Insightful) on Monday December 08, 2008 @05:22PM (#26040125) Journal Ironically, the VA system provides better, cheaper care because it does not suffer from many of the inefficiencies of a market-based health care system-- preventive care and unified standards within a single provider make treatment much more effective and cheaper in the long run. When I was a medic, I asked a doc what his opinion was of socialized medicine (had just read article about Canada's system). He said: Look around. I prefer being a military doctor. I make less, but then I don't have to worry about business expenses. personal insurance, and having insurance companies looking over my shoulder when I'm working with a customer. • Re: (Score:3, Informative) Mostly we could even do with worse ones. Many of the tasks of a nurse don't require special training. You apparently have no fscking idea what a nurse does. Nurses are responsible for infection control, for monitoring and record keeping of vital signs and other diagnostic data, and for administering medication. They are often the primary providers of patient education, and are often the ones who keep • Re: (Score:3) In this case I don't give a shit about moderation: Fuck you! Kind of all people in medical care is awesome. They are nice people, well educated, work their ass of and don't get paid what they deserve but love people so they carry on. To blame them is so wrong in so many levels. Grand parent was right, sure their procedures could improve but in the end bad things happen if there are to few people around to finish all the tasks. • Re: (Score:3, Interesting) Kind of all people in medical care is awesome. They are nice people, well educated, work their ass of and don't get paid what they deserve but love people so they carry on. To blame them is so wrong in so many levels. The health care industry has its share of bad apples, just like any other barrel. There will be disinterested nurses and doctors, as well as plain stupid ones. And their will be highly interested and skilled ones too. This problem can be attacked in many ways. The way that Mr. Provonost wants i • Re: (Score:3, Insightful) The issue is that proper SCIENCE has little room for heroes. If science and engineering is performed correctly and documented, you catch mistakes before they cause problems. 90%+ of all things treated at the hospital have a regimented treatment laid out by mountains of research.. the trouble is matching the proper research to the problem, then executing the treatment exactly as the research was proofed. Your example is exactly the kind of non-engineer thinking that needs to stop. Somebody, has generally alr • Re: (Score:3) Let the highly skilled people make more decisions, and defend them when they do so, by making it illegal to sue hospitals for trying to help you -- only for lack of trying. As it is today, if a doctor has a choice between a procedure that slightly improves 70% of the patients and does nothing for the rest, or one that cures 95% and maims 5%, he will almost always have to go for the former, cause the 5% unlucky ones will sue. Not far enough. The whole tort system needs to be altered to stop paying out money just because something bad happened. The way it used to work, and should work, was that your lawsuit only had merit if you could show the doctor was wrong to choose the 95%-success course of action. If he was, the wrong decision or negligence or whatever is punished. There used to be consideration of what a reasonable (competent in the field) person (doctor) would have done. Not anymore. • Re: (Score:3, Insightful) The point of checklists is not to stifle creativity, it is to bolster memory and stifle mistakes. If you look at the checklist, think about it, and decide to not do one of the steps or do that step differently, that's innovation. It may have a good result or a bad result, and your reward or punishment will depend on the result. But it was intentional. If you make an intentional choice and the result is good, you can change the checklist. If you don't have a checklist, and you forget an important step • Re: (Score:3, Interesting) no, even the best people WILL make mistakes even if they're just small ones. That's the whole point of things like ISO or QS that somebody ELSE is looking for those mistakes. Imagine if GM made one mistake per worker, and they allowed 2 mistakes per Auto off the line... oh, wait that happened and they nearly died. 1 mistake per worker each day is intolerably high in a world class environment.. and Nurses and Doctors are all Bachelors degree or higher, that's the top 15% of all workers already. You don't g • Re: (Score:2) They need a good solid dose of ISO9001 or CMMI Yes man, I hope you get your dose of CMMI medical treatment. It will be a most morbidly hilarious thing. • Re:Yes, and it's called LifeWings (Score:4, Insightful) on Monday December 08, 2008 @05:54AM (#26030539) Homepage After becoming a pilot, I became a firm believer in checklists and brought them into my computer work. I make checklists for software delivery processes, framework installations, toner cartridge changes, etc. Then I ask someone else in the team to carry them out while I watch over their shoulder. And then I make improvements and put them in a well-known directory. My vacations are never interrupted anymore. ;-) Devon • At$107 per life... (Score:3, Interesting)

it seems like a good investment.
• Re: (Score:2)

I don't know about that. There are some people I know who I'd pay at least that much to get rid of.

• Re:At $107 per life... (Score:5, Interesting) on Monday December 08, 2008 @04:15AM (#26030053) While I'm a firm believer in checklists, I have my doubts about the study. It sounds to me like this might have been conducted by a guy who has a bias toward having checklists (which I do too). It'd be difficult to measure how many lives were saved by the checklist (as opposed to other factors). I bet he looked at the deaths, and then looked for mistakes in procedures (that could have been avoided with a checklist). But there are some serious issues with this methodology. Were these patients going to die of something else? Would the checklist have prevented the mistake? And how many patients inadvertently lived due to mistakes that would have died, had checklist procedures been followed? This message was posted in Slashdot tradition - without reading the article. • Re:At$107 per life... (Score:5, Informative)

on Monday December 08, 2008 @05:04AM (#26030283)

Yes the methodology is important - and in this case the article is a fascinating read - basically he compared the number of mistakes beforehand and afterwards, but also looked at the correlation with the number of deaths before hand and afterwards.

In this case the causes are a known problem (especially line infections) and they could directly correlate the adoption of checklists with a drop in the incidence of line infections, and subsequently with a lower death rate. Seems like fair enough science to me, and logical as well :-)

• Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

............. It'd be difficult to measure how many lives were saved by the checklist (as opposed to other factors). I bet he looked at the deaths, and then looked for mistakes in procedures (that could have been avoided with a checklist). ................

I'm not sure if your getting the point of the article.

The article explains that in the "ICU" the technology exists to save people who would normally have no chance, If and only if, the proper procedures are carried out.

One person or a piece equipment not being available at the right time could be the difference of a patient living or dying.

With a checklist care can given in a consistent and methodical manner.

Towards the end of the article it talks about the little Austrian girl and that prev

• Why it's not done (Score:3, Interesting)

I recall reading a similar article, where a hospital used six sigma [wikipedia.org] techniques to develop similar checklists. The program was shut down because the FDA claimed it's approval was needed before the checklists could be implemented.

The changes need to be made at the FDA, then health care will improve.
• Get rid of the dinosaurs (Score:3, Informative)

on Monday December 08, 2008 @01:31AM (#26029049)
It's amazing how resistant 'modern' medicine is to basic proven work flow improvements such as checklists, treatment guidelines. I think that doctors are the main problem here since they already know everything. The problem is that what they know is out of date, is not practice rigorously, and a lot of their experience is anecdotal evidence which skews their view.

They reflexively cry out against 'cookbook' medicine and 'socialized medicine' while ignoring sound scientific advice.

We really do need an attitude change here in the same way that Detroit needs an attitude change. (Throw the dinosaurs out.)

• Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

Having been both a medic and a programmer, I can tell you that "basic proven work flow improvements" are not one-size-fits-all.

• Re:Get rid of the dinosaurs (Score:5, Informative)

on Monday December 08, 2008 @02:31AM (#26029535)

They reflexively cry out against 'cookbook' medicine and 'socialized medicine' while ignoring sound scientific advice.

Huh? WTF has concerns about cookbook medicine to do with the need for universal access to health care? I am one of those physicians who reflexively cries out FOR universal health insurance. Of course I don't call that 'socialized medicine' because its not different than our 'socialized' school, EMS, Fire, Police, and Highway systems to name a few.

And while I think that there are a lot of potential problems with 'cookbook medicine' there are also a lot of potential benefits. Its like any tool that can be used to help or hinder the practice of medicine. For example, an EMR that reminds me my diabetic patient is overdue for annual eye screen and should be on an ACE-Inhibitor is a great idea. However if the same system forces my hand on the ACE-I when I know that patient has had multiple episodes of fainting due to low blood pressure (which an ACE-I would exacerbate) its a problem. Similarly, if I spend all my time inputting data into the EMR it becomes more of a hindrance than a help.

In the case of ICU checklists, nurses every year are required to do more and more documentation (an average of 18 pieces of paper for a new non-ICU admission to my hospital) and every checklist or additional page you add to that is taking time away from patient care. So what sounds like a great idea may in fact cause worse outcomes because it puts the nurses focus on a paper rather than their patient.

Of course what I always find to be funny is the very same people who have zero tolerance for any risk or error and decry doctors for an untoward fear of cookbook medicine are the first ones to ask you to depart from standard practice for their personal special case... the antibiotics they want for a virus, the expensive lab test or MRI that is really not necessary, the pricey new drug on TV they want when a safer older drug with a proven track record works just as well. That innate lack of trust of health care providers and assumption of laziness or ill will translates to their own relationships with their physician in different but recognizable ways.

• Re: (Score:2)

For example, an EMR that reminds me my diabetic patient is overdue for annual eye screen and should be on an ACE-Inhibitor is a great idea.

For the non-medical people out there: EMR = Electronic Medical Record

Of course what I always find to be funny is the very same people who have zero tolerance for any risk or error and decry doctors for an untoward fear of cookbook medicine are the first ones to ask you to depart from standard practice for their personal special case...

I'm finding this to be a more common practice of patients for a variety of reasons, but the problem is often compounded by the doctors not listening to the patient's concerns. I'm not saying that doctors don't have the patient's best interests at heart, but most patients find it difficult to establish that rapport where they can rule out the doctor is being "lazy" or even downright "evil" unless the doctor is able to spend time with them

• Re:Get rid of the dinosaurs (Score:5, Interesting)

on Monday December 08, 2008 @05:56AM (#26030555)

It's amazing how resistant 'modern' medicine is to basic proven work flow improvements such as checklists, treatment guidelines.

It's not just modern medicine - this has been a problem since more-or-less forever. Go and look up a little medical history about the early use of antiseptics, anaesthetics and even such basic practices as good hygiene.

There was a documentary shown a few weeks ago in the UK about a 19th century doctor who noticed that births attended by doctors had a much higher fatality rate than those attended by midwives - he eventually figured out that hygiene had something to do with it and started making sure he and those working under him washed before visiting the maternity wards. His fatality rate plummeted but still the majority of doctors refused to change how they worked and he wound up literally driven insane because he had worked out how one could easily save thousands of lives but nobody was prepared to even give his idea a go.

Unfortunately I forget his name now so I can't easily find more information to point you at.

• Re: (Score:3, Informative)

Probably Semmelweis [wikipedia.org].
• Re: (Score:2)

Probably Semmelweis [wikipedia.org].

Yep, that's the one. Thanks.

• Re: (Score:2)

Not to mention the indefensible batshit insane hours many medical personnel pull.

In the Air Force, it is generally forbidden to work technicians beyond a twelve-hour shift except in contingency (wartime) ops. Performance, even by experienced people working with GOOD checklists turn to shit quickly after 12 hours. That's why the USAF is manned to support 2 x 12 hr shifts in most cases. Crashed aircraft cost missions, money, and lives.

OTOH, one reads of thirty hour shifts in the medical world. Sorry, that's n

• Look at Airplanes (Score:4, Interesting)

on Monday December 08, 2008 @01:38AM (#26029109) Homepage Journal

They use checklists for everything, and flying a plane is much less dangerous than operating on someone in an ICU.

Don't they already have some kinds of checklists for "make sure we don't leave any sponges or scalpels in the patient."

• Re:Look at Airplanes (Score:5, Interesting)

on Monday December 08, 2008 @01:49AM (#26029201)

Aviation checklist users suffer from a condition that I'll call "known-data blindness" for lack of a better term.

I've run the C-172M checklist several hundred times, and let me tell you, it's *very* easy to lose track of your place in the list, and forget whether your memory of having completed a given item is from this evening's flight, or from the one you did this morning.

This is almost never deadly in a beast as simple as a fixed-prop, fixed-gear Cessna 172. Come to think of it, I've *never* caught a condition with my checklist that would have killed me, had I missed that item.

My personal experience leaves me wondering if it's possible that checklists could cause obvious things to be *missed*.

The problem could be easily fixed with dynamically generated checklists that cannot be answered without having read and comprehended the question... but that would slow things down so much that I bet it would cost more lives than it would save.

• Re:Look at Airplanes (Score:5, Insightful)

on Monday December 08, 2008 @02:18AM (#26029451)

In my experience with rocket engine tests, both professionally and as a hobby, I've seen checklists be invaluable tools. I've seen them catch problems that were irrelevant, ones that would have resulted in loss of data, ones that would have resulted in incorrect operation, and ones that had direct safety impacts. However, the problem you describe is very, very common. The simplest solution is quite effective, and they discuss it in the article (but fail to mention how amazingly important it is). You need the person who is responsible for reading the list and making sure each item happens to *not* be the one doing it.

In the article, the nurses follow the checklist and stop the doctors if a step gets missed. At an XCOR Aerospace rocket test, at any given time there is someone whose sole responsibility is reading the checklist (who that is may change through the day, but there always is such a person, and who it is is always clearly defined). In both cases, the person with the checklist has the authority to stop whatever is happening and correct the situation. When I test my hobby rocket motors, the test crew is much more limited (usually two or three people, compared to at least six and often many more at XCOR). As a result, the person reading the checklist is usually also doing things on it. Mistakes are more common, and it's not uncommon to set down the checklist and just do things for a while.

That separation of roles is simple, yet highly effective. Obviously it's a bit hard in a single-pilot airplane. But, in a situation where it's at all possible, it's well worth doing. There are a number of reasons it helps, but one of the simplest is important: the reader can hold the checklist binder with their thumb pointing at the last step completed, since they don't have to use that hand to actually do anything. In the medical case, you're actually making checks on a piece of paper that goes into the file, but the idea is the same.

As an aside, having the checklist be unfamiliar is a bad thing -- mistakes and confusion are much more common after a checklist change. The fix lies in how you use the checklist, not what it says. The reaction to hearing the next step on the list read needs to be "yep, I've already got the tools in my hand" or "oh, right, nearly forgot that" -- not "wait, what was that? Oh, right I was already doing that." If you do that, people will be more inclined to ignore the checklists, because they interfere with operations.

• Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

Thanks for that. Apparently I skimmed the article a little too quickly. Imagining myself in both positions in the cockpit, I'm inclined to agree. Steps would rarely get missed or performed incorrectly. A far superior system to what I've been doing.

I wonder if delegating checklist-reading to a non-pilot passenger would fall under "good crew-resource management" or "gross negligence".

• Re: (Score:2)

I've run the C-172M checklist several hundred times, and let me tell you, it's *very* easy to lose track of your place in the list, and forget whether your memory of having completed a given item is from this evening's flight, or from the one you did this morning.

That is a problem, but it's much less likely that you'll fall for it when you're working to the checklist, rather than trying to remember what you need to check also. 'Are the tyres OK? I'm sure they were'...

I've *never* caught a condition with my checklist that would have killed me, had I missed that item.

No, but does that mean you don't need to do it? I went through the checklist one time before a flight and discovered no fire extinguisher on board - I didn't need it, as it happens. But the reason it wasn't there was that the engine had caught fire the previous week, and they'd used it. You can be damn

• Re:Look at Airplanes (Score:5, Interesting)

on Monday December 08, 2008 @03:57AM (#26029989)
Your comment reminds me of a programming anecdote that I have told here before. We are responsible for a software package that coincidentally has patient data in it (but this applies to all sorts of applications).

The medical staff was supposed to log all interactions, which range from medicines administered to having a conversation with the patient or parent/guardian. Everything was to be logged, so that nothing was forgotten. And nothing could ever be deleted, by design.

Well, people made mistakes (the nerve of them!), and sometimes a record would be entered on the wrong patient, and you'd really WANT to delete that misleading information. This spawned numerous debates as to whether the we should really remove the erroneous information, or mark it as bad information. For instance, if Note 5 was that a certain drug was administered, and a Doctor relied on Note 5's misinformation to do whatever was done in Note 6, by deleting Note 5, you remove the defense and rationale of the Doctor.

Likewise, if you allow temporary removal of a note, then you allow someone to "undelete", you could end up in a similarly indefensible position. Note 5 correctly says that full dosage was administered at 10PM. Note 5 gets inadvertently deleted (recycle bin). At 10:05, a nurse sees that no dosage has been administered, so administers another full dosage, and logs it as Note 6. Someone undeletes Note 5, and makes the nurse look incompetent. Patient dies. Nurse got framed. All bad.

After all these discussions, at the direction of the administration, we built a permanent delete function, so that these erroneous notes could be permanently removed. No "recycle bin". Heavy logging of what transpired and when. And an alert window warning the user that they are about to perform an irreversible action of delete.

... and the "known data blindness" (or something like it) caused people to click through the warnings. How many Windows Alert boxes do users get per day, where they just press OK. Well, we kept getting requests to "undelete something that I just deleted", even though we warned them with a Windows Alert box.

So we made the warning bigger and longer and wordier. And the rate of calls to undelete something went UP.

Finally we changed the alert box to prompt the user to do something different. In order to complete the Delete function, the user had to key in the word "irreversible" into the alert prompt.

Requests to undelete went down to near-zero.

• Re: (Score:2)

This spawned numerous debates as to whether the we should really remove the erroneous information, or mark it as bad information.

No mark as bad and refer to replacement note option?

• That's why they call it a check list (Score:3, Insightful)

If you actually check off the items on the list and not just look at them, you don't need your memory to tell you whether you've done them or not, you can just look at the check marks.

The other half of the equation is taking the check list seriously in the first place. If you do that, then you WILL read and comprehend the questions.

• Re: (Score:2)

There's a little problem in an ICU: sometimes your hands are covered with things you really don't want to leave smeared on a checklist. This is where a nurse or doctor trading off on such tasks as needed can be a godsend. It's the perfect task for the new nurse on staff, who's learning the ropes.
• Re: (Score:2)

I've run the C-172M checklist several hundred times, and let me tell you, it's *very* easy to lose track of your place in the list, and forget whether your memory of having completed a given item is from this evening's flight, or from the one you did this morning.

Try reading the list out loud. This helps me for some reason.

Devon

• Re: (Score:2)

Your problem is not with the checklist per se, but the implementation. A printed sheet that doesn't get marked off is merely a mnemonic, not a checklist. If you don't actually check each one off, for example with a pen* or a checkbox on a pda, then you're just using a physical mnemonic, and it's just as fallible as a mental one.

Justin.

* perhaps on a wipeclean overlay?

• Re: (Score:2)

In my aviation experience, if you are ever interrupted in a checklist, or unsure of where you are for some reason, then you restart the from the beginning. This forces you to be conscious of the checklist as you run through it, instead of working completely off of a muscle memory and running through the entire thing in a haze.

Not that this behaviour is entirely bad, in fact it's even sometimes desirable. It's exactly the reason why emergency checklists should be so thoroughly memorized: in a high stress si

• Look at Suction. (Score:2)

"Don't they already have some kinds of checklists for "make sure we don't leave any sponges or scalpels in the patient.""

Corsec67, I'm sorry to tell you but we left a nurse inside you.

• Re: (Score:2)

Sounds pretty kinky to me. What is this, Rocky Horror Hospital?
• Re: (Score:2)

The article goes a step further and talks about the specific event that gave rise to the checklist in aviation. (But I won't spoil it for you here!)
• Re: (Score:2)

please mod parent up under the RTFA Funny tag.. oh wait...

yes i know it was a way to long FA but it specifically brings up the introduction of checklists in aviation - specifically. ie a plane crashed and they figured the cause was that it was too complicated to fly so pilots should have checklists to prevent such problems.

• Gathering of success rate data shut it down (Score:3, Interesting)

on Monday December 08, 2008 @09:29AM (#26032243) Journal

Apparently they got in a bit of trouble over this - not for instituting the checklists, but for having the gall to track results to see how effective they were. Because of that, it basically becomes an experiment and you have to get all sorts of permissions.

A bit more detail in this NYTimes editorial [nytimes.com]

And some commentary from the University of Houston Law Center: here [uh.edu]

Note that all of this is actually a bit dated - the original New Yorker article was from December, 2007 and the followups that I saw were from January, 2008. I don't know what's happened with it since then; I suspect that checklists have been implemented in some hospitals but that nobody is sharing results.

Related LinksTop of the: day, week, month.

We all agree on the necessity of compromise. We just can't agree on when it's necessary to compromise. -- Larry Wall

Working...