Table 3.
Publication | Description | Reasons for SW-CRT | Relevance |
---|---|---|---|
Palmay et al.66 | Rolling out an intensive care unit (ICU) audit-and-feedback program to 6 non-ICU services, and evaluating targeted antimicrobial utilization. Location: Toronto, Canada. |
1. All participating clusters receive the intervention during the study. 2. Overcomes the financial or workload difficulties in concurrent roll-out. |
One of the inpatient services receiving intervention is a neurosurgery unit. |
Haugen et al.67 | Rolling out the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist intervention to 5 surgical specialties (clusters), and evaluating outcomes including morbidity, mortality and length of hospital stay. Location: Norway |
1. Unethical not to deliver or retract intervention with perceived benefit. 2. Logistical and financial reasons to stagger the intervention delivery |
One of the surgical specialties is neurosurgery. |
Schwarze et al.68 | Rolling out the question prompt list intervention to 40 surgeons and assessing its effectiveness on patient engagement and well-being among patients considering major surgery. Location: United States. |
1. Allows all surgeons to have access to the intervention during the study, and avoided contamination between study participants. | The participating surgeons include neurosurgeons performing high-risk neurosurgical operations. |
Malone et al.69 | Assessing the impact of two de-implementation strategies, order set change and facilitation training, across 9 Children’s Hospitals. Location: United States |
1. Allows for phased implementation of intervention with logistical convenience. 2. Permits all clusters to receive intervention and therefore increases participation. |
The intervention aims to reduce unnecessary post-operative antibiotics in surgical procedures performed by surgeons, including neurosurgeons. |