Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2006 Oct;15(5):363-8.
doi: 10.1136/qshc.2006.018333.

Experience of wrong site surgery and surgical marking practices among clinicians in the UK

Sally J Giles  1 , Penny Rhodes, Gill Clements, Gary A Cook, Ruth Hayton, Melanie J Maxwell, Trevor A Sheldon, John Wright
Affiliations

Experience of wrong site surgery and surgical marking practices among clinicians in the UK

Sally J Giles et al. Qual Saf Health Care. 2006 Oct.

Abstract

Background: Little is known about the incidence of "wrong site surgery", but the consequences of this type of medical error can be severe. Guidance from both the USA and more recently the UK has highlighted the importance of preventing error by marking patients before surgery.

Objective: To investigate the experiences of wrong site surgery and current marking practices among clinicians in the UK before the release of a national Correct Site Surgery Alert.

Methods: 38 telephone or face-to-face interviews were conducted with consultant surgeons in ophthalmology, orthopaedics and urology in 14 National Health Service hospitals in the UK. The interviews were coded and analysed thematically using the software package QSR Nud*ist 6.

Results: Most surgeons had experience of wrong site surgery, but there was no clear pattern of underlying causes. Marking practices varied considerably. Surgeons were divided on the value of marking and varied in their practices. Orthopaedic surgeons reported that they marked before surgery; however, some urologists and ophthalmologists reported that they did not. There seemed to be no formal hospital policies in place specifically relating to wrong site surgery, and there were problems associated with implementing a system of marking in some cases. The methods used to mark patients also varied. Some surgeons believed that marking was a limited method of preventing wrong site surgery and may even increase the risk of wrong site surgery.

Conclusion: Marking practices are variable and marking is not always used. Introducing standard guidance on marking may reduce the overall risk of wrong site surgery, especially as clinicians work at different hospital sites. However, the more specific needs of people and specialties must also be considered.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

References

    1. Brennan T, Leape L, Laird N M.et al Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalised patients: results of the Harvard Medical practice Study I. N Engl J Med 1991324370–384. - PubMed
    1. Wilson R, Runciman W, Gibberd R W.et al Quality in Australian Health Care Study. Med J Aust 1996164754 - PubMed
    1. Gawande A A, Thomas E J, Zinner M J.et al Incidence and nature of surgical adverse events in Colorado and Utah in 1992. Surgery 199912666–75. - PubMed
    1. Vincent C, Stanhope N, Croley‐Murphy M.et al Reasons for not reporting adverse incidents: an empirical study. J Eval Clin Pract 1999513–21. - PubMed
    1. Baker R G, Norton P G, Flintoft V. The Canadian Adverse Events Study: the incidence of adverse events among hospital patients in Canada. CMAJ 20041701678–1686. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms