The universal protocol is a quality standard that was made mandatory by the Joint Commission in 2004. The principal purpose of the element is to guarantee that the right procedure is followed in patient identity, appropriate surgical site, and right scheduled process. The universal process is significant in executing health care services. The joint consensus developed the universal protocol upon agreement on the steps to prevent wrong surgical operations, wrong patient surgery, and wrong site. All accredited health care facilitate, operations based in offices and ambulatory care.
The universal protocol is paramount in the provision of safe patient care. Whenever there is the invasion, procedure or surgical process, one feels secure when the hospital makes it a priority to provide quality and safe patient care. The method is applicable for both the inpatient and outpatient (Banschbach, 2009, p. 257). Universal protocol sees that the right site and side for the surgical process are identified. Notably, the processes can include major surgical processes and pain management injections. The universal protocol has an essential component that provides the guidelines for performance of healthcare services to the patients.
Verification process- pre-procedure
marking the surgical site
“Time out”- done immediately before commencing the procedure
The procedure must be conducted and documented for referencing. Recently, a review was done concerning the period of the universal protocol. The addition has seen the use of diagnostic images, appropriate patient positioning, implants and appropriate instruments (Hunter, 2007). The protocol is applicable in a clinical setting. The medical team has included a section that calls for patient’s consent before performing any surgical procedure. Similarly, the significance of the universal protocol has ensured that more lives are saved. There has been a reduction in the number of reported cases concerning surgical errors especially when the universal protocol was applied. The failure incidences often called “never events” are preventable.
The incident that that concern the inappropriate use of the universal protocol relates to MGH (Massachusetts General Hospital) case. In 2008, lack of proper knowledge on the use of universal protocol resulted in complications during surgery. The three incidences concerned wrong site marking during surgery and injection performed on the wrong site. The medical team hurriedly looked for ways to rectify the error. The implication of the matter saw the patients develop minor complications that the hospital worked to ensure normalcy is attained. To prevent future errors, the hospital communicated to the patient concerning their status. However, the hospital has taken steps to avoid future errors.
Various measures need to be adopted to prevent the occurrence errors. It is recommended that only a health practitioner should perform the procedure. During the site marking, the lead surgeon should perform be the one marking the site (Hunter, 2007). This should be done at the preoperative withholding area and consult the patient widely during the marking process. According to the National Quality Forum and Medicare personnel, the need to sustain the use of universal protocol calls for the involvement of all stakeholders in health care. Further, there is the need to launch sensitization campaign to all health personnel on the proper use and significance of the universal protocol (Banschbach, 2009, p. 259). Conduct a real-time documentation and performance evaluation to obtain feedback both from the patients and the medical personnel. The committee saw the need to update the universal protocol by including new documentation and monitoring tools to ensure performance meets the expected status.
References
Banschbach, S. K. (2009). Revisiting the Universal Protocol. AORN Journal, 89(2), 257-259. doi:10.1016/j.aorn.2009.01.001
Hunter, J. G. (2007).Extend the universal protocol, not just the surgical time out. J Am Coll Surg, 205 (4): e4-5. 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.06.318
