BACKGROUND: Preprocedural briefings have been adopted in many high consequence environments, but have not been widely accepted in medicine. We sought to develop, implement, and evaluate a preoperative briefing for cardiovascular surgery. STUDY DESIGN: The briefing was developed by using a combined questionnaire and semistructured focus group approach involving five subspecialties of surgical staff (n=55). The results were used to design and implement a preoperative briefing protocol. The briefing was evaluated by monitoring surgical flow disruptions, circulating nurse trips to the core, time spent in the core, and cost-waste reports before and after implementation of the briefing across 16 cardiac surgery cases. RESULTS: Focus group data indicated consensus among surgical staff concerning briefing benefits, duration, location, content, and potential barriers. Disagreement arose concerning timing of the brief and the roles of key participants. After implementation of the briefing, there was a reduction in total surgical flow disruptions per case (5.4 preimplementation versus 2.8 postimplementation, p=0.004) and reductions in per case average of procedural knowledge disruptions (4.1 versus 2.17, p=0.004) and miscommunication events (2.5 versus 1.17, p=0.03). There was no significant reduction in disruptions because of equipment preparation or disruptions from patient-related issues. On average, briefed teams experienced fewer trips to the core (10 versus 4.7, p=0.004) and spent less time in the core (397.4 seconds versus 172.3 seconds, p=0.006), and there was a trend toward decreased waste (30% versus 17%, p=0.15). CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate the feasibility of creating a specialty-specific preoperative briefing to decrease surgical flow disruptions and improve patient safety in the operating room.
BACKGROUND: Preprocedural briefings have been adopted in many high consequence environments, but have not been widely accepted in medicine. We sought to develop, implement, and evaluate a preoperative briefing for cardiovascular surgery. STUDY DESIGN: The briefing was developed by using a combined questionnaire and semistructured focus group approach involving five subspecialties of surgical staff (n=55). The results were used to design and implement a preoperative briefing protocol. The briefing was evaluated by monitoring surgical flow disruptions, circulating nurse trips to the core, time spent in the core, and cost-waste reports before and after implementation of the briefing across 16 cardiac surgery cases. RESULTS: Focus group data indicated consensus among surgical staff concerning briefing benefits, duration, location, content, and potential barriers. Disagreement arose concerning timing of the brief and the roles of key participants. After implementation of the briefing, there was a reduction in total surgical flow disruptions per case (5.4 preimplementation versus 2.8 postimplementation, p=0.004) and reductions in per case average of procedural knowledge disruptions (4.1 versus 2.17, p=0.004) and miscommunication events (2.5 versus 1.17, p=0.03). There was no significant reduction in disruptions because of equipment preparation or disruptions from patient-related issues. On average, briefed teams experienced fewer trips to the core (10 versus 4.7, p=0.004) and spent less time in the core (397.4 seconds versus 172.3 seconds, p=0.006), and there was a trend toward decreased waste (30% versus 17%, p=0.15). CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate the feasibility of creating a specialty-specific preoperative briefing to decrease surgical flow disruptions and improve patient safety in the operating room.
Authors: John C Morey; Robert Simon; Gregory D Jay; Robert L Wears; Mary Salisbury; Kimberly A Dukes; Scott D Berns Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Lawrence J Dacey; Donald S Likosky; Bruce J Leavitt; Stephen J Lahey; Reed D Quinn; Felix Hernandez; Hebe B Quinton; Joseph P Desimone; Cathy S Ross; Gerald T O'Connor Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: L Lingard; S Espin; B Rubin; S Whyte; M Colmenares; G R Baker; D Doran; E Grober; B Orser; J Bohnen; R Reznick Journal: Qual Saf Health Care Date: 2005-10
Authors: Peter Pronovost; Sean Berenholtz; Todd Dorman; Pam A Lipsett; Terri Simmonds; Carol Haraden Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Donald S Likosky; Bruce J Leavitt; Charles A S Marrin; David J Malenka; Alexander G Reeves; Ronald M Weintraub; Louis R Caplan; Yvon R Baribeau; David C Charlesworth; Cathy S Ross; John H Braxton; Felix Hernandez; Gerald T O'Connor Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Ken R Catchpole; Elyse Hallett; Sam Curtis; Tannaz Mirchi; Colby P Souders; Jennifer T Anger Journal: Ergonomics Date: 2017-03-08 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Marcus E Semel; Stephen Resch; Alex B Haynes; Luke M Funk; Angela Bader; William R Berry; Thomas G Weiser; Atul A Gawande Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Ken Catchpole; Colby Perkins; Catherine Bresee; M Jonathon Solnik; Benjamin Sherman; John Fritch; Bruno Gross; Samantha Jagannathan; Niv Hakami-Majd; Raymund Avenido; Jennifer T Anger Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2015-12-16 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Camilla B Pimentel; A Lynn Snow; Sarah L Carnes; Nishant R Shah; Julia R Loup; Tatiana M Vallejo-Luces; Caroline Madrigal; Christine W Hartmann Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-02-08 Impact factor: 6.473