BACKGROUND: Operating room (OR) human traffic has been implicated as a cause of surgical site infection. We first observed the normal human traffic pattern in our Pediatric Orthopedic ORs, and then examined the effect of surveillance on that traffic pattern. METHODS: This study consisted of 2 phases: phase I sought to observe the OR traffic pattern (number of door swings, maximum and minimum number of OR personnel, number of OR personnel at 30-minute intervals, or changes in nursing, anesthesia, or surgeon staff) during surgical cases without OR personnel being notified, and for phase II, the same traffic pattern was monitored with their knowledge. RESULTS: Two thousand four hundred forty-two minutes of surgical time were observed in phase I, and 1908 minutes were observed in phase II. There was no difference (P=0.06) in the time between door swings between phase I (1.39 min) and phase II (1.70 min), no difference (P=1.000) in the maximum number of people in the OR between phase I (11.5 people, range: 7-15 people) and phase II (11.5 people, range: 8-20 people), and no difference (P=1.000) in the minimum number of people in the OR between phase I (4.67 people, range: 4-6 people) and phase II (4.71 people, range: 3-6 people). There was a difference in the time between door swings (P=0.03) and maximum number of people in the OR (P=0.005) based on the length of the surgery (less or more than 120 min). There was no difference in the time between door swings (P=0.11), but there was a difference in the maximum number of people in the OR (P=0.002) based on type of surgery (spine vs. others). CONCLUSIONS: There was no role of surveillance of human traffic in the OR. To achieve any change in the OR traffic pattern, monitoring alone may not be sufficient; other novel techniques or incentives may need to be considered.
BACKGROUND: Operating room (OR) human traffic has been implicated as a cause of surgical site infection. We first observed the normal human traffic pattern in our Pediatric Orthopedic ORs, and then examined the effect of surveillance on that traffic pattern. METHODS: This study consisted of 2 phases: phase I sought to observe the OR traffic pattern (number of door swings, maximum and minimum number of OR personnel, number of OR personnel at 30-minute intervals, or changes in nursing, anesthesia, or surgeon staff) during surgical cases without OR personnel being notified, and for phase II, the same traffic pattern was monitored with their knowledge. RESULTS: Two thousand four hundred forty-two minutes of surgical time were observed in phase I, and 1908 minutes were observed in phase II. There was no difference (P=0.06) in the time between door swings between phase I (1.39 min) and phase II (1.70 min), no difference (P=1.000) in the maximum number of people in the OR between phase I (11.5 people, range: 7-15 people) and phase II (11.5 people, range: 8-20 people), and no difference (P=1.000) in the minimum number of people in the OR between phase I (4.67 people, range: 4-6 people) and phase II (4.71 people, range: 3-6 people). There was a difference in the time between door swings (P=0.03) and maximum number of people in the OR (P=0.005) based on the length of the surgery (less or more than 120 min). There was no difference in the time between door swings (P=0.11), but there was a difference in the maximum number of people in the OR (P=0.002) based on type of surgery (spine vs. others). CONCLUSIONS: There was no role of surveillance of human traffic in the OR. To achieve any change in the OR traffic pattern, monitoring alone may not be sufficient; other novel techniques or incentives may need to be considered.
Authors: Charles E Edmiston; Gary R Seabrook; Robert A Cambria; Kellie R Brown; Brian D Lewis; Jay R Sommers; Candace J Krepel; Patti J Wilson; Sharon Sinski; Jonathan B Towne Journal: Surgery Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Pedram Panahi; Mitchell Stroh; David S Casper; Javad Parvizi; Matthew S Austin Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Gabriel Birgand; Christine Azevedo; Gaelle Toupet; Roger Pissard-Gibollet; Bruno Grandbastien; Eric Fleury; Jean-Christophe Lucet Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2014-01-02 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Andrea Baldini; Kier Blevins; Daniel Del Gaizo; Oliver Enke; Karan Goswami; William Griffin; Pier Francesco Indelli; Toby Jennison; Eustathios Kenanidis; Paul Manner; Robin Patel; Teija Puhto; Parag Sancheti; Rahul Sharma; Rajeev Sharma; Rjajendra Shetty; Rami Sorial; Naasha Talati; T David Tarity; Kevin Tetsworth; Christos Topalis; Eleftherios Tsiridis; Annette W-Dahl; Matthew Wilson Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 4.757