BACKGROUND: Many researchers have previously explored the correlation between surgical flow disruptions and adverse events in cardiac surgery; however, there is no reliable tool to prospectively categorize surgical flow disruptions and the conditions that predispose a surgical team to adverse events. METHODS: Two independent raters of different medical and human factors expertise observed 12 cardiovascular operations and iteratively designed a surgical flow disruption tool (SFDT) to characterize surgical flow disruptions and the latent factors that contribute to adverse events. Categories to characterize surgical flow disruptions were created based on human factors models of human error. After the design period, both raters observed ten surgical cases using the tool to assess validity and inter-rater reliability. RESULTS: Rating agreement (weighted kappa) for each category across the ten surgeries was moderate to very high, resulting in strong inter-rater reliability for each category on the surgical flow disruption tool. Use of the SFDT was simple and clear for observers of diverse backgrounds, including human factors experts and medical personnel. CONCLUSIONS: This research depicts the development and utility of a tool to analyze surgical flow disruptions in the cardiovascular operating room with satisfactory inter-rater reliability. This tool is an important first step in systematically categorizing and measuring surgical flow disruptions and their impact on patient safety in the operating room.
BACKGROUND: Many researchers have previously explored the correlation between surgical flow disruptions and adverse events in cardiac surgery; however, there is no reliable tool to prospectively categorize surgical flow disruptions and the conditions that predispose a surgical team to adverse events. METHODS: Two independent raters of different medical and human factors expertise observed 12 cardiovascular operations and iteratively designed a surgical flow disruption tool (SFDT) to characterize surgical flow disruptions and the latent factors that contribute to adverse events. Categories to characterize surgical flow disruptions were created based on human factors models of human error. After the design period, both raters observed ten surgical cases using the tool to assess validity and inter-rater reliability. RESULTS: Rating agreement (weighted kappa) for each category across the ten surgeries was moderate to very high, resulting in strong inter-rater reliability for each category on the surgical flow disruption tool. Use of the SFDT was simple and clear for observers of diverse backgrounds, including human factors experts and medical personnel. CONCLUSIONS: This research depicts the development and utility of a tool to analyze surgical flow disruptions in the cardiovascular operating room with satisfactory inter-rater reliability. This tool is an important first step in systematically categorizing and measuring surgical flow disruptions and their impact on patient safety in the operating room.
Authors: Steven Yule; Rhona Flin; Nicola Maran; David Rowley; George Youngson; Simon Paterson-Brown Journal: World J Surg Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Veena Guru; Jack V Tu; Edward Etchells; Geoffrey M Anderson; C David Naylor; Richard J Novick; Christopher M Feindel; Fraser D Rubens; Kevin Teoh; Avdesh Mathur; Andrew Hamilton; Daniel Bonneau; Charles Cutrara; Peter C Austin; Stephen E Fremes Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-06-10 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Nick Sevdalis; Rachel Davis; Mary Koutantji; Shabnam Undre; Ara Darzi; Charles A Vincent Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2008-06-16 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Andrew W ElBardissi; Douglas A Wiegmann; Joseph A Dearani; Richard C Daly; Thoralf M Sundt Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: G T O'Connor; D J Malenka; H Quinton; J F Robb; M A Kellett; S Shubrooks; W A Bradley; M J Hearne; M W Watkins; D E Wennberg; B Hettleman; D J O'Rourke; P D McGrath; T Ryan; P VerLee Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Douglas A Wiegmann; Andrew W ElBardissi; Joseph A Dearani; Richard C Daly; Thoralf M Sundt Journal: Surgery Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Daniel R Wong; David F Torchiana; Thomas J Vander Salm; Arvind K Agnihotri; Richard M J Bohmer; Imtiaz S Ali Journal: Surgery Date: 2007-04-26 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Daniel Shouhed; Renaldo Blocker; Alex Gangi; Eric Ley; Jennifer Blaha; Daniel Margulies; Douglas A Wiegmann; Ben Starnes; Cathy Karl; Richard Karl; Bruce L Gewertz; Ken R Catchpole Journal: World J Surg Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Ken Catchpole; David M Neyens; James Abernathy; David Allison; Anjali Joseph; Scott T Reeves Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2017-09-28 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Colby P Souders; Ken Catchpole; Alex Hannemann; Ronit Lyon; Karyn S Eilber; Catherine Bresee; Tara Cohen; Matthias Weigl; Jennifer T Anger Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2019-04-30 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Emily C Alberto; Michael J Amberson; Megan Cheng; Ivan Marsic; Arunachalam A Thenappan; Aleksandra Sarcevic; Karen J O'Connell; Randall S Burd Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2020-11-01 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Monica Jain; Brian T Fry; Luke W Hess; Jennifer T Anger; Bruce L Gewertz; Ken Catchpole Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2016-07-04 Impact factor: 2.192