Abstract:Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Introduction Follow-up in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED) is essential to avoid adverse events and complications, such as arrhythmias, device dysfunction, and infections, among other events. Prevention plays a fundamental role, especially when these patients undergo non-cardiological invasive tests and/or procedures (e.g., surgeries) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). These situations sometimes require the reprogramming of the device. In our Arrhythmia's Unit, after developing a healthcare management model based on the Lean methodology, 2 processes were identified that implied a reduction in activity, a threat to efficiency and a risk to patients who would undergo invasive non-cardiological procedures or MRI. One of them was a significant number of "urgent" consultations and calls to evaluate and/or reprogram CIED in patients that underwent invasive non-cardiological procedures the same day, many of them without indication of reprogramming according to the type of procedure. Another one was the increase in consultations of people with CIED who require MRI, was often contraindicated because it produces adverse effects on the patient and/or device. Objectives: To implement action protocols, depending on the type of device and dependant on stimulation, for patients with CIED who undergo surgery and invasive non-cardiac procedures and MRI. To evaluate the number of urgent calls and adverse events before and after implementation. Methods: A single-centre, not randomized study has been designed. A year before and after the implementation of the protocol the following variables were quantified a) number of urgent calls b) number of adverse events (persistence of the special programming of the device more than 24 h after the end of the procedure: asynchronous stimulation, ICD therapies off, CIED dysfunction or unnecessary programming). Two protocols were developed: a) management of CIED carriers undergoing invasive non-cardiological procedures according to recent clinical practice guidelines. b) risk of dysfunction after MRI based on type/compatibility with MRI of the device, implanted leads, and stimulation dependence, using a colour scale, from safe (in green) to high risk of dysfunction (in black) Pictures 1,2. The protocols for action in the anaesthesia and radiology services were disseminated through sessions given by the arrhythmia unit staff. Results: In the year prior to implementing the protocol, 185 urgent calls/year were quantified, (15.1 calls/month) and the number of adverse events was 4 (0.2 events/month). One year after the implementation of the protocol, urgent calls were reduced to 4calls/year, representing 0.33 calls/month (p <0.001) and there was an absence of adverse events (zero events/month). Conclusions. The implementation of protocols based on recent clinical practice guidelines can reduce urgent calls and adverse events related to reprogramming in our centre, thus increasing patient safety.

Production of an introperative safety list in interventional cardiology. From pilot project to clinical practice guidelines hospital

The Design and Clinical Application of a Multidisciplinary Round Electronic Checklist in ICU

[Implementation of the Perioperative WHO Safety Checklist at a Maximum Care Hospital - A Retrospective Analysis]

Development of an Emergency Department Safety Checklist through a global consensus process

Perioperative patient safety recommendations: best practices derived from a systematic review and a multidisciplinary expert consensus

Implementing a pre-operative checklist to increase patient safety: a 1-year follow-up of personnel attitudes

Obstacles to using the safe surgery checklist: Perspectives of first-line personnel

13: AN IMPROVEMENT ON THE SURGICAL SAFETY CHECKLIST ACCORDING TO PRACTICE-BASED EVIDENCE

Development of a checklist for neonatal perioperative care in cardiac surgery

Testing the implementation of an electronic process-of-care checklist for use during morning medical rounds in a tertiary intensive care unit: a prospective before-after study

Mobile persuasive technology for the teaching and learning in surgical safety: Content validation

Beyond nursing programming: preventing adverse events in patients with implantable cardiac devices undergoing invasive procedures and MRI after lean healthcare method

Creating a high-performance surgical safety checklist: A multimodal evaluation plan to reinvigorate the checklist

AVOIDable medical errors in invasive procedures: Facts on the ground - An NHS staff survey

Perioperative patient safety indicators—A Delphi study

An evidence‐based general anaesthesia and prone position nursing checklist: Development and testing

Patients' and healthcare workers' recommendations for a surgical patient safety checklist - a qualitative study

Feasibility of implementing a surgical patient safety checklist: prospective cross-sectional evaluation

[A database in the coronary care unit to assess quality of care of acute myocardial infarction]

Safe preoperative regional nerve blocks

Peri-Operative Prophylaxis in Patients of Neonatal and Pediatric Age Subjected to Cardiac and Thoracic Surgery: A RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method Consensus Study