For example:
ARTERIAL LINE
• several sterile alcohol skin wipes • 3cc syringe with 25g needle [for skin infiltration of local anesthetic at puncture site] • bottle of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1/1000 • 2x2 cotton gauze pads to use for pressure on failed puncture sites • 3 #20 gauge plastic catheters (22 gauge for small children) • 2 surgical towels to drape over hand and lower arm to absorb blood that accompanied successful arterial puncture • size 7.5 sterile surgical gloves for me to wear while performing procedure • specialized 1" waterproof plastic skin tape to secure and protect catheter in situ
I was constantly amazed by how my colleagues would have to stop and wait for something not present in the unit they were called to. Conversely, when I was called because of an inability to insert an A-line, as they were referred to, and wasn't in a place where I could assemble my desired materials, I'd proceed with the materials at hand, all the while thinking "this could have been done a lot better...."
It turns out that while it's a good idea to check things this "low-hanging", the value is far larger than catching wrong patients, so don't worry too much!
Much of the value comes from essentially disrupting routine with an opportunity to stop, and from creating a culture of speaking up. I think the NHS was the organisation to trial having the nurse run the checklist, which had the effect of empowering the "lowest level" person in the operating theatre. Studies showed that even just having everyone in the room speak once increased the chance of subsequent communication, and ultimately improved patient outcomes.
Atul Gawande was one of the key people in designing and rolling out these checklists and wrote a book about it that I'd recommend – The Checklist Manifesto.
Known as pointing and calling in transport AFAIK.
It's similar to why formal verification is so important in hardware, because it's effectively forcing you to be specific about semantics and let's the computer walk through things for you.
In aviation, standard phraseology is generally carefully designed such that (mosts) subsets of a phrase are distinct from the opposite phrase. For example, when ATC warns of traffic, you reply either "traffic in sight" or "negative contact". When ATC hears only half of either, they still know what you meant.
You don't realise how "bad" normal operational discipline is until you've seen it done right. The risk isn't so much that people skip a step, but that phantom steps start creeping in because people aren't quite sure of the standard, that saps a surprising amount of resources away which could be used for checking mistakes. And then people get disorganised and potential holes appear.
A big part of excellence isn't doing the right steps, it is trimming out the steps that don't need to be there, to focus attention on the stuff that works.
Regarding your checklist, you should read about Semmelweiss: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
It's crazy to think that entire generations of doctors retired and died arguing against washing your hands!
sad anecdote: a friend of mine got surgery to remove a problematic mole on his back, and not only the surgeon got the wrong one, but even got upset with him when my friend mentioned something like "I thought it was further up my back".
Note that in the debate you cited both, proponent and opponent, advocated the (continued) use of checklists.
Side note: I could see how you could do a blinded RCT, but not how you could do a double blind RCT here.
to a place where the protocol is "are you [name]?"
The difference is unnerving.
Getting surgeons to adopt the kind of "It's obvious but point and speak or you're fired"-style checklists a la operating an aircraft has reduced complications (from the minor to deaths) by several percent in the NHS. It's perhaps worrying given how low-hanging some of these fruit are - i.e. "Do we have the right patient?".