Beyond the count: Operationalising risk-based prevention of retained surgical items

Jed Duff

doi:10.26550/2209-1092.1390

Authors

Jed Duff Editor, Journal of Perioperative Nursing; Professor, School of Nursing Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology; Nursing and Midwifery Research Centre, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.26550/2209-1092.1390

Abstract

Inadvertently retained surgical items (RSIs) remain among the most serious and persistent adverse events in perioperative care. Despite their classification as ‘never events’, RSIs continue to occur across surgical specialties and healthcare systems, resulting in avoidable patient harm, professional distress, and substantial medico-legal consequences. Their persistence suggests that the problem is not one of awareness or intent, but of how prevention is conceptualised and enacted in practice.

References

1. Australian College of Perioperative Nurses (ACORN). The new ACORN standards. 17th ed. Adelaide: ACORN; 2023.

2. Association of periOperative Registered Nurses. Guideline for prevention of retained surgical items. In: Guidelines for perioperative practice. Denver: AORN; 2022.

3. Warwick V, Gillespie BM, McMurray A, Clark-Burg K. The patient, case, individual and environmental factors that impact on the surgical count process: An integrative review [Internet]. J Perioper Nurs. 2019[cited 2026 Jan 20];32(3):9–19. DOI:10.26550/2209-1092.1057

4. Snape AJ, Duff J, Gumuskaya O, Inder K, Hutton A. Strategies to prevent inadvertent retained surgical items: An integrative review [Internet]. J Perioper Nurs. 2022[cited 2026 Jan 20];35(4):e11–e24. DOI:10.26550/2209-1092.1196

5. Osborne S, Cockburn T, Davis J. Exploring risk, antecedents and human costs of living with a retained surgical item: A narrative synthesis of Australian case law 1981–2018 [Internet]. J Perioper Nurs. 2022[cited 2026 Jan 20];35(2):49–65. DOI:10.26550/2209-1092.1201

6. Gawande AA, Studdert DM, Orav EJ, Brennan TA, Zinner MJ. Risk factors for retained instruments and sponges after surgery [Internet]. N Engl J Med. 2003[cited 2026 Jan 20];348(3):229–35. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa021721

7. Greenberg CC, Regenbogen SE, Lipsitz SR, Diaz-Flores R, Gawande AA. The frequency and significance of discrepancies in the surgical count [Internet]. Ann Surg. 2008[cited 2026 Jan 20];248(2):337–41. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318181c9a3

8. Egorova NN, Moskowitz A, Gelijns A, Weinberg A, Curty J, Rabin-Fastman B et al. Managing the prevention of retained surgical instruments: What is the value of counting? [Internet]Ann Surg. 2008;247(1):13–18. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3180f633be

9. Moffatt-Bruce SD, Cook CH, Steinberg SM, Stawicki SP. Risk factors for retained surgical items: a meta-analysis and proposed risk stratification system [Internet]. J Surg Res. 2014[cited 2026 Jan 20];190(2):429–36. DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2014.05.044

10. Duggan EG, Fernandez J, Saulan MM, Mayers DL, Nikolaj M, Strah TM et al. 1300 days and counting: A risk model approach to preventing retained foreign objects (RFOs) [Internet]. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2018[cited 2026 Jan 20];44(5):260–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcjq.2017.11.006

11. Erkan HN, Er ÖS. The retained surgical items risk assessment scale: Development and psychometric characteristics [Internet]. J Surg Res. 2024[cited 2026 Jan 20];296:581–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2023.12.052