Interesting question. Slightly related, the book The Checklist Manifesto argues for checklists in operation rooms, to prevent rare but disastrous cases like "scalpel left inside patient", or "wrong blood type administered".
So maybe a different version of the question could be: "Do you have more or less confidence in the operating team (surgeon, nurses) using a checklist?" After reading the book I would have more confidence.
I would rather surgical teams had industry-standard automated tracking technology with (for example) bar codes and radio frequency tags, than a checklist.
> industry-standard automated tracking technology with (for example) bar codes and radio frequency tags, than a checklist
The book referenced, The Checklist Manifesto, is worth a read. Checklists outperform automated tracking technologies because checklists don't silently fail.
> column in Nature suggests studies giving positive results to checklists don't replicate
"In a review of nearly 7,000 surgical procedures performed at 5 NHS hospitals, they found that the checklist was used in 97% of cases, but was completed only 62% of the time8. When the researchers watched a smaller number of procedures in person, they found that practitioners often failed to give the checks their full attention, and read only two-thirds of the items out loud9. In slightly more than 40% of cases, at least one team member was absent during the checks; 10% of the time, the lead surgeon was missing."
I would like both please. Tracking technology helps with the specific example of tools left inside patients, but does nothing for things like accidentally amputating the wrong leg.
So maybe a different version of the question could be: "Do you have more or less confidence in the operating team (surgeon, nurses) using a checklist?" After reading the book I would have more confidence.