Adaptação e validação de checklist de segurança cirúrgica na cesárea

Lara Mabelle Milfont Boeckmann; Maria Cristina Soares Rodrigues

Lara Mabelle Milfont Boeckmann Hospital Regional de Taguatinga (Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brasil)
Maria Cristina Soares Rodrigues Departamento de Enfermagem. Universidade de Brasília (UnB) (Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brasil)

Palabras clave: Salud de la mujer, Seguridad del paciente, Lista de chequeo, Enfermería de centro quirúrjico, Cesárea

Key-words: Women’s health, Patient safety, Checklist, Nursing surgical center, Cesarean section

Palavras chave: Saúde da mulher, Segurança do paciente, Lista de checagem, Enfermagem de centro cirúrgico, Cesárea

Resumen

Objetivo: adaptar y validar un instrumento de seguridad quirúrgica en la cesárea, con base en la revisión integrativa de la literatura y en el protocolo y checklist de seguridad quirúrgica de la Organización Mundial de la Salud. Método: estudio metodológico con triangulación de datos envolviendo un total de 43 participantes, siendo ocho jueces para la validación del contenido aparente del instrumento. Se utilizó la técnica Delphi y para la validación semántica se usaron otros 35 profesionales del equipo quirúrgico de un hospital público del Distrito Federal, Brasil. Se aplicó el coeficiente de confiabilidad en el instrumento. Resultados: el instrumento alcanzó el índice de validad del contenido general de 0,9 y la concordancia de los interevaluadores fue de 1. El coeficiente total del alfa de Cronbach fue de 0,86 y el promedio de los resultados de las dimensiones obtuvo notas elevadas. Conclusión: el instrumento presentó validad en los tres criterios estudiados y confiabilidad para ser aplicado en futuros estudios que evalúen la seguridad quirúrgica en la cesárea

Abstract

Objective: adapt and validate a surgical safety instrument in the cesarean delivery, based on an integrative review of the literature, and on the World Health Organization protocol and surgical safety checklist. Method: methodological study, with triangulation of data, involving a total of 43 participants, being eight judges for the validation of content and apparent of the instrument, using the Delphi technique, and for the semantic validation, another 35 professionals from the surgical team of a public hospital in the Federal District, Brazil. The reliability coefficient was applied to the instrument. Results: the instrument achieved general content validity index of 0.9 and inter-rater agreement of 1. The total coefficient of Cronbach’s alpha was 0.86, and the mean score of the dimensions obtained high scores. Conclusion: the instrument presented validity in the three criteria studied and reliability to be applied in future studies evaluating the surgical safety in cesarean deliveries

Resumo

Objetivo: adaptar e validar um instrumento de segurança cirúrgica na cesárea, com base em revisão integrativa da literatura, e no protocolo e checklist de segurança cirúrgica da Organização Mundial da Saúde. Método: estudo metodológico, com triangulação de dados, envolvendo um total de 43 participantes, sendo oito juízes para a validação de conteúdo e aparente do instrumento, utilizando-se a técnica Delphi, e para a validação semântica outros 35 profissionais da equipe cirúrgica de um hospital público do Distrito Federal, Brasil. Foi aplicado o coeficiente de confiabilidade ao instrumento. Resultados: o instrumento alcançou índice de validade de conteúdo geral de 0,9 e concordância interavaliadores de 1. O coeficiente total do alfa de Cronbach foi de 0,86, e a média dos escores das dimensões obteve notas elevadas. Conclusão: o instrumento apresentou validade nos três critérios estudados e confiabilidade para ser aplicado em futuros estudos que avaliem a segurança cirúrgica na cesárea

Bibliografía

1. Regal JF, Gilbert JS, Burwick RM. The complement system and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Mol Immunol [Intenet]. 2015 Sep [cited 2017 Oct 14]; 67(I1):56-70. Available from: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.molimm.2015.02.030
2. (BR) Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA). Serviços de atenção materna e neonatal: segurança e qualidade. Brasília (DF): ANVISA; 2014.
3. Moura MLO, Mendes W. Assessment of surgical adverse events in Rio de Janeiro hospitals. Rev Bras Epidemiol [Internet]. 2012 May [cited 2017 Mar 10]; 15(3):523-35. Available from: http://www.scielo.br/ pdf/rbepid/v15n3/en_07.pdf
4. Sell SE, Beresford PC, Dias HHZR, Garcia ORZ, Santos EKAD. Looks and knowledge: experiences of mothers and nursing staff regarding post-caesarean section pain. Texto Contexto Enferm [Internet]. 2012 Oct/ Dec [cited 2017 Mar 26]; 21(4):766-74. Available from: http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/714/71425249006.pdf
5. Wiley J, Sons I. Debo tener una cesárea? J Midwifery Women’s Health. 2013 Jun [cited 2015 Jan 29]; 58(4):485- 6. Available from: http:// http://www.onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jmwh.12048/pdf
6. Roscani AN, Ferraz EM, Filho AGO, Freitas MI. Validation of surgical checklist to prevent surgical site infection. Acta Paul Enferm [internet]. 2015 Nov [cited 2017 Oct 14]; 28(6):553-65. Available from: http://www.scielo.br/pdf/ape/v28n6/1982-0194- ape-28-06-0553.pdf
7. World Health Organization (WHO). The second global patient safety challenge: safe surgery saves lives [Internet]. Geneva: WHO; 2008 [cited 2017 Aug 10]. Available from: http://www.who.int/patientsafety/ safesurgery/knowledge_base/SSSL_Brochure_ finalJun08.pdf
8. World Health Organization (WHO). WHO Guidelines for Safe Surgery. Safe Surgery Saves Lives [Internet]. Geneva: WHO; 2009 [cited 2016 Jan 12]. Available from: http://apps.who.int/iris/ bitstream/10665/44185/1/9789241598552_eng.pdf
9. Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS). Segundo desafio global para a segurança do paciente: Cirurgias seguras salvam vidas (orientações para cirurgia segura da OMS). Tradução de Marcela Sánchez Nilo e Irma Angélica Durán. Rio de Janeiro: Organização Pan- Americana da Saúde; Ministério da Saúde; Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária; 2009.
10. Freitas MR, Antunes AG, Lopes BNA, Fernandes FDC, Monte LDC, Gama ZASG. Assessment of adherence to the WHO surgical safety checklist in urological and gynecological surgeries at two teaching hospitals in Natal, Rio Grande do Norte State, Brazil. Cad Saude Publica [Internet]. 2014 Jan [cited 2016 Jun 10]; 30(1):137-48. Available from: http://www.scielosp. org/pdf/csp/v30n1/0102-311X-csp-30-01-00137.pdf
11. Spector JM, Agrawal P, Kodkany B, Lipsitz S, Lashoher A, Dziekan G, et al. Improving quality of care for maternal and newborn health: prospective pilot study of the WHO safe childbirth checklist program. PLoS One [Internet]. 2012 May [cited 2016 Jun 10]; 7(5):e35151. Available from: http://journals.plos.org/ plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal. pone.0035151
12. World Health Organization (WHO). Safe childbirth checklist implementation guide improving the quality of facility-based delivery for mothers and newborns [Internet]. Geneva: WHO; 2015 [cited 2016 Jun 04]. Available from: http://www.ibes. med.br/novo/wp-content/ themes/bizwaytheme/ upload/1449704747.pdf
13. Boeckmann LM, Rodrigues MC. Surgical safety in cesarean section: integrative review. Cogitare Enferm [Internet]. 2015 Oct/Dec [cited 2015 Dec 02]; 20(4):758-66. Available from: http://www.ibes. med.br/novo/wp-content/themes/bizwaytheme/ upload/1449704747.pdf
14. Santana HT, Siqueira HN, Costa MM, Oliveira DC, Gomes SM, Sousa FC, et al. [Surgical patient safety from the perspective of health surveillance: a theoretical reflection]. Vig Sanit Debate [Internet]. 2014 May [cited 2016 Jul 26]; 2(2):34-42. Available from: https:// visaemdebate.incqs.fiocruz.br/index. php/visaemdebate
15. (BR) Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Uma análise da situação de saúde e a vigilância da saúde da mulher. Brasília (DF): Ministério da Saúde; 2012.
16. Demo P. Metodologia científica em Ciências Sociais. 3ª. ed. São Paulo: Atlas; 2016.
17. Pasquale L. Principles of elaboration of psychological scales. Rev Psiquiatr Clin. [Internet]. 1998 [cited 2016 Jul 26]; 25(5):206-13. Available from: http://server2. docfoc.com/ uploads/Z2015/12/16/PeCYBcAFoe/ c2ce0c8de8ed987fc41dba3efa1ad442.pdf
18. Bellucci Jr. JA, Matsuda LM. Construction and validation of an instrument to assess the Reception with Risk. Rev Bras Enferm [Internet]. 2012 Sept/Oct [cited 2016 Jul 15]; 65(5):751-7. Available from: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0034-71672012000500006
19. Scarparo AF, Laus AM, Azevedo ALCS, Freitas MRI, Gabriel CS, Chaves LDP. Reflections on the use of Delphi technique in research in nursing. Rev Rene [Internet]. 2012 Jan [cited 2017 Oct 16];13(1):242-51. Available from: http://www.periodicos.ufc.br/rene/ article/view/3803/3000
20. Medeiros RK, Ferreira Jr. MA, Pinto DP, Vitor AF, Santos VE, Barrichello E. Pasquali’s model of content validation in nursing research. Rev Enf Ref [Internet]. 2015 Jan/Feb/Mar [cited 2016 Fev 05]; 65(5):127- 35. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.12707/ RIV14009
21. Rubio DM, Berg-Weger M, Tebb SS, Lee Es, Rauch S. Objectifying content validity: conducting a content validity study in social work research. Social Work Research [Internet]. 2003 Jun [cited 2016 Dec 02]; 27(2): 94-104. Available from: https://academic. oup.com/swr/ article-abstract/27/2/94/1659075/ Objectifying-content-validity-Conducting-a-content? redirectedFrom=fulltext
22. Martins GD. Sobre confiabilidade e validade. RBGN [Internet]. Jan/abr 2006 [cited 2016 Mar 18]; 8(20):1-12. Available from: http://rbgn.fecap.br/RBGN/article/ view/51/271
23. Fachinelli AC, Giacomello CP, Rech J, Bertolini AL. Strategic intelligence: development of scale for understanding the construct. REBRAE [Internet]. 2013 May/Aug [cited 2017 Oct 18]; 6(2):179-91. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.7213/rebrae.06.002.AO06
24. Maghsoudi M, Haririan J. The Impact of Brainstorming Strategies Iranian EFL Learners’ Writing Skill Regarding their Social Class Status. Int J Lang Linguist [Internet]. 2013 Dec [cited 2017 Oct 16]; 1(4-1):60- 7. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.11648/j. ijll.s.20130101.20
25. Collares CF, Grec WLP, Machado JLM. Psychometry and medical education quality: concepts and application. Scien in Health [Internet]. 2012 Jan/ Apr [cited 2017 Oct 22]; 3(1): 33-49. Available from: http://arquivos.cruzeirodosuleducacional.edu.br/ principal/new/revista_scienceinhealth/07_jan_ abr_2012/science_03_01_33_49.pdf
26. Zamanzadeh V, Rassouli M, Abbaszadeh A, Majd HA, Nikanfar A, Ghahramanian A. Details of content validity and objectifying it in instrument development Nurs Pract Today [Internet]. 2014 jul [cited 2017 Oct 21]; 1(3): 163-71. Available from: file:///C:/Users/ Usuario/Downloads/24-509-1-PB.pdf
27. Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health [Internet]. 2006 Oct [cited 2016 Jan 12]; 29(5):489-97. Available from: http://cfd.ntunhs.edu.tw/ezfiles/6/1006/ attach/33/pta_ 6871_6791004_64131.pdf
28. Ribeiro MA, Vedovato TG, Lopes MH, Monteiro MI, Guirardello EB. Validation studies in nursing: integrative review. Rev Rene [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2016 jan 12]; 14(1):218-28. Available from: http:// www.revistarene.ufc.br/revista/index.php/revista/ article/view/54/pdf
29. Kawano T, Tani M, Taniwaki M, Ogata K, Yokoyama M. A preliminary study of patients’ perceptions on the implementation of the WHO surgical safety checklist in women who had Cesarean sections. J Anesth [Internet]. 2014 Oct [cited 2017 Oct 23]; 29(3):459-62. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00540- 014-1934-3
30. Sendlhofer G, Mosbacher N, Karina L, Kober B, Jantscher L, Berghold A, et al. Implementation of a Surgical Safety Checklist: Interventions to Optimize the Process and Hints to Increase Compliance. PLoS One [Internet] 2015 Feb [cited 2017 Oct 10]; 10(2): e0116926. Available from: Available from: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0116926
31. Mohammed A, Wu J, Biggs T, OfilI-yebovi D, Cox M, Pacquette S, et al. Does use of a world health organization obstetric safe surgery checklist improve communication between obstetricians and anaesthetists? A retrospective study of 389 caesarean sections. BJOG [Internet]. 2013 Apr [cited 2016 Jan 12]; 120(5): 644-8. Available from: http:// onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1471-0528.12041/epdf
32. Singh SS, Mehra N, Hopkins L, Leyland N, Wolfman W, Allaire C, et al. Surgical safety checklist in obstetrics and gynaecology. J Obstet Gynaecol Can [Internet]. 2013 Mar [cited 2015 Nov 13]; 35(Suppl 1):e5629. Available from: http://sogc.org/wpcontent/ uploads/2013/04/JOGC-Jan2013-CPG286- ENG-Online.pdf
33. Rosado JP. Lista de verificación para cesáreas y partos [Carta a los editores]. Medwave [Internet]. 2013 Mar [cited 2015 Nov 04]; 13(2):e5629. Available from: https://www.medwave.cl/link.cgi/Medwave/ Perspectivas/Cartas/5629

Adaptação e validação de checklist de segurança cirúrgica na cesárea

Adaptation and validation of a surgical safety checklist in the cesarean delivery

Adaptación y validación del checklist de seguridad cirúrjica en la cesárea

Resumen

Abstract

Resumo

Bibliografía