INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study was to apply a human factors research approach to identify flow disruptions, deviations in the optimal course of care, in robotic abdominal sacrocolpopexy procedures with the ultimate goal of developing system interventions to improve the safety and efficiency of robotic surgery. METHODS: Twenty-four robotic abdominal sacrocolpopexy procedures were observed for flow disruptions. Surgeries were divided into four phases: (1) patient arrival and induction of anesthesia; (2) port placement and robot docking; (3) console time; (4) undocking of robot, incision closure, and patient exiting the OR. RESULTS: Flow disruptions were observed at a rate of 10.9 ± 5.1 per hour. The most frequently observed flow disruptions involved training issues (2.8 ± 2.4 flow disruptions per hour), equipment (2.2 ± 1.6 flow disruptions per hour), and poor coordination (2.0 ± 1.3 flow disruptions per hour). The rate of flow disruptions was highest in phase 2 (19.2 ± 14.4 flow disruptions per hour). Cases with more experienced surgeons involved shorter console times by 1.5 h (95% CI: 0.1, 3.0, p = 0.033) and 1.8 fewer (95% CI: 1.2, 2.6, p = 0.001) flow disruptions per hour. Surgeries were 1 h shorter on average (95% CI: 0.1, 1.9, p = 0.034) in cases in which the patient was > 65 years old. Da Vinci S console times were 0.8 h longer (95% CI: 0.01, 1.5, p = 0.047) than Si. CONCLUSIONS: Flow disruptions in robotic abdominal sacrocolpopexy surgery occur about every 6 min. Flow disruption rates are highest during the most complex portions of the surgery. More experienced surgeons have lower flow disruption rates and operate more quickly.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study was to apply a human factors research approach to identify flow disruptions, deviations in the optimal course of care, in robotic abdominal sacrocolpopexy procedures with the ultimate goal of developing system interventions to improve the safety and efficiency of robotic surgery. METHODS: Twenty-four robotic abdominal sacrocolpopexy procedures were observed for flow disruptions. Surgeries were divided into four phases: (1) patient arrival and induction of anesthesia; (2) port placement and robot docking; (3) console time; (4) undocking of robot, incision closure, and patient exiting the OR. RESULTS: Flow disruptions were observed at a rate of 10.9 ± 5.1 per hour. The most frequently observed flow disruptions involved training issues (2.8 ± 2.4 flow disruptions per hour), equipment (2.2 ± 1.6 flow disruptions per hour), and poor coordination (2.0 ± 1.3 flow disruptions per hour). The rate of flow disruptions was highest in phase 2 (19.2 ± 14.4 flow disruptions per hour). Cases with more experienced surgeons involved shorter console times by 1.5 h (95% CI: 0.1, 3.0, p = 0.033) and 1.8 fewer (95% CI: 1.2, 2.6, p = 0.001) flow disruptions per hour. Surgeries were 1 h shorter on average (95% CI: 0.1, 1.9, p = 0.034) in cases in which the patient was > 65 years old. Da Vinci S console times were 0.8 h longer (95% CI: 0.01, 1.5, p = 0.047) than Si. CONCLUSIONS: Flow disruptions in robotic abdominal sacrocolpopexy surgery occur about every 6 min. Flow disruption rates are highest during the most complex portions of the surgery. More experienced surgeons have lower flow disruption rates and operate more quickly.
Entities:
Keywords:
Da Vinci system; Flow disruptions; Human factors research; Robotic surgical procedures; Sacrocolpopexy
Authors: Ken R Catchpole; Anthony E B Giddings; Michael Wilkinson; Guy Hirst; Trevor Dale; Marc R de Leval Journal: Surgery Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Douglas A Wiegmann; Ashley A Eggman; Andrew W Elbardissi; Sarah Henrickson Parker; Thoralf M Sundt Journal: Appl Ergon Date: 2010-03-03 Impact factor: 3.661
Authors: K R Catchpole; A E B Giddings; M R de Leval; G J Peek; P J Godden; M Utley; S Gallivan; G Hirst; T Dale Journal: Ergonomics Date: 2006 Apr 15-May 15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Christopher J Dru; Jennifer T Anger; Colby P Souders; Catherine Bresee; Matthias Weigl; Elyse Hallett; Ken Catchpole Journal: Can J Urol Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 1.344
Authors: Sarah E Henrickson Parker; Aaron A Laviana; Rishi K Wadhera; Douglas A Wiegmann; Thoralf M Sundt Journal: World J Surg Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Ken Catchpole; Eric Ley; Doug Wiegmann; Jennifer Blaha; Daniel Shouhed; Alexandra Gangi; Renaldo Blocker; Richard Karl; Cathy Karl; Bill Taggart; Benjamin Starnes; Bruce Gewertz Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 14.766
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: Tara N Cohen; Jennifer T Anger; Falisha F Kanji; Jennifer Zamudio; Elise DeForest; Connor Lusk; Ray Avenido; Christine Yoshizawa; Stephanie Bartkowicz; Lynne S Nemeth; Ken Catchpole Journal: J Patient Saf Date: 2022-07-07 Impact factor: 2.243