Jenna C Allers1, Ahmed A Hussein2, Nabeeha Ahmad1, Lora Cavuoto3, Joseph F Wing1, Robin M Hayes1, Nobuyuki Hinata4, Ann M Bisantz3, Khurshid A Guru5. 1. Applied Technology Laboratory for Advanced Surgery (ATLAS), Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY. 2. Applied Technology Laboratory for Advanced Surgery (ATLAS), Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY; Department of Urology, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt. 3. Industrial and Systems Engineering, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY. 4. University of Kobe, Kobe, Japan. 5. Applied Technology Laboratory for Advanced Surgery (ATLAS), Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY. Electronic address: Khurshid.guru@roswellpark.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyze and categorize causes for interruptions during robot-assisted surgery. METHODS: We analyzed 10 robot-assisted prostatectomies that were performed by 3 surgeons from October 2014 to June 2015. Interruptions to surgery were defined in terms of duration, stage of surgery, personnel involved, reasons, and impact of the interruption on the surgical workflow. RESULTS: The main reasons for interruptions included the following: console surgeons switching (29%); preparation of the surgical equipment, such as cleaning or changing the camera (29%) or an instrument (27%); or when a suture, stapler, or clip was needed (12%). The most common interruption duration was 10-29 seconds (47.6%), and the least common interruption duration was greater than 90 seconds (3.6%). Additionally, about 14% of the interruptions were considered avoidable, whereas the remaining 86% of interruptions were necessary for surgery. CONCLUSION: By identifying and analyzing interruptions, we can develop evidence-based strategies to improve operating room efficiency, lower costs, and advance patient safety.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze and categorize causes for interruptions during robot-assisted surgery. METHODS: We analyzed 10 robot-assisted prostatectomies that were performed by 3 surgeons from October 2014 to June 2015. Interruptions to surgery were defined in terms of duration, stage of surgery, personnel involved, reasons, and impact of the interruption on the surgical workflow. RESULTS: The main reasons for interruptions included the following: console surgeons switching (29%); preparation of the surgical equipment, such as cleaning or changing the camera (29%) or an instrument (27%); or when a suture, stapler, or clip was needed (12%). The most common interruption duration was 10-29 seconds (47.6%), and the least common interruption duration was greater than 90 seconds (3.6%). Additionally, about 14% of the interruptions were considered avoidable, whereas the remaining 86% of interruptions were necessary for surgery. CONCLUSION: By identifying and analyzing interruptions, we can develop evidence-based strategies to improve operating room efficiency, lower costs, and advance patient safety.
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: Christopher L Tarola; Jacquelyn A Quin; Miguel E Haime; Jennifer M Gabany; Kristin B Taylor; Kay B Leissner; Marco A Zenati Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Kevin Sexton; Amanda Johnson; Amanda Gotsch; Ahmed A Hussein; Lora Cavuoto; Khurshid A Guru Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2017-07-08 Impact factor: 7.035
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
Authors: Ken Catchpole; Ann Bisantz; M Susan Hallbeck; Matthias Weigl; Rebecca Randell; Merrick Kossack; Jennifer T Anger Journal: Appl Ergon Date: 2018-03-02 Impact factor: 3.661