Marlot Kuiper

252 Connective Routines and Berg 2003; Timmermans and Epstein, 2010). The most generic definition of standardization is “a process of constructing uniformities across time and space, through the generation of agreed upon rules” (Bowker and Starr, 1999). A standard can be considered “the outcome of standardization.” Different types of standards can be distinguished from the literature. There are for example design standards and terminological standards. This dissertation specifically focuses on the category of procedural standards; standards that define work processes. Within this category however, there is a whole ‘jungle’ of standards in itself, since procedural standards for example differ in how ‘stringent’ they define work processes. In this dissertation I explicitly focused on checklists. These standards are particularly interesting since they consist of “sharply defined action items” (Davidoff 2010, p.206) that prescribe how actions should be performed. Even further specified, the Surgical Safety Checklist that is central to this dissertation, is an example of a ‘static sequential’ checklist that requires verification and conformation (Romig et al., 2016; Winters et al., 2009). Such checklists are generally introduced in team-based settings where the various tasks are done by various teammembers. The intentional use of a static sequential checklist, is that a designated actor reads out the items on the checklist, and each responsible party verifies completion of this specific task. For the Surgical Safety Checklist this would for example imply that the surgeon verifies the patient’s identity, the procedure and surgical site and asks about availability of equipment. The nurse assisting the operation would confirm the information. Subsequently, the surgeon will ask about the patient’s medical condition and the availability of blood to which the anaesthesiologist would respond. Multiple interactions are required to complete the checklist. Various other objectives besides ‘reducing medical mistakes’ like ‘improving collaboration’ and ‘improving communication’ have therefore been identified (e.g. Winters et al., 2009). “How can we conceptualize linkages between professionals and standards?” (chapter 2) The final theoretical question covers the relation between the core concepts. There is scholarly agreement that checklists (can) transform professional work. However, there is a sharp contrast in how different disciplines view checklists as ‘entity’, let alone in how they consequently reason how such standards transform professional practice. From the different bodies of literature I identified four