Literature DB >> 33077512

Work systems analysis of sterile processing: assembly.

Myrtede Alfred1, Ken Catchpole2, Emily Huffer3, Larry Fredendall4, Kevin M Taaffe3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Sterile processing departments (SPDs) play a crucial role in surgical safety and efficiency. SPDs clean instruments to remove contaminants (decontamination), inspect and reorganise instruments into their correct trays (assembly), then sterilise and store instruments for future use (sterilisation and storage). However, broken, missing or inappropriately cleaned instruments are a frequent problem for surgical teams. These issues should be identified and corrected during the assembly phase.
OBJECTIVE: A work systems analysis, framed within the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model, was used to develop a comprehensive understanding of the assembly stage of reprocessing, identify the range of work challenges and uncover the inter-relationship among system components influencing reliable instrument reprocessing.
METHODS: The study was conducted at a 700-bed academic hospital in the Southeastern United States with two reprocessing facilities from October 2017 to October 2018. Fifty-six hours of direct observations, 36 interviews were used to iteratively develop the work systems analysis. This included the process map and task analysis developed to describe the assembly system, the abstraction hierarchy developed to identify the possible performance shaping factors (based on SEIPS) and a variance matrix developed to illustrate the relationship among the tasks, performance shaping factors, failures and outcomes. Operating room (OR) reported tray defect data from July 2016 to December 2017 were analysed to identify the percentage and types of defects across reprocessing phases the most common assembly defects.
RESULTS: The majority of the 3900 tray defects occurred during the assembly phase; impacting 5% of surgical cases (n=41 799). Missing instruments, which could result in OR delays and increased surgical duration, were the most commonly reported assembly defect (17.6%, n=700). High variability was observed in the reassembling of trays with failures including adding incorrect instruments, omitting instruments and failing to remove damaged instrument. These failures were precipitated by technological shortcomings, production pressures, tray composition, unstandardised instrument nomenclature and inadequate SPD staff training.
CONCLUSIONS: Supporting patient safety, minimising tray defects and OR delays and improving overall reliability of instrument reprocessing require a well-designed instrument tracking system, standardised nomenclature, effective coordination of reprocessing tasks between SPD and the OR and well-trained sterile processing technicians. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Entities:  

Keywords:  health services research; human factors; patient safety; qualitative research

Year:  2020        PMID: 33077512      PMCID: PMC7979531          DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2019-010740

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf        ISSN: 2044-5415            Impact factor:   7.035


  38 in total

1.  Middle ear instrument nomenclature: a taxonomic approach.

Authors:  John S Phillips; Matthew J Mason; Heather Dixon
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2010-12-13

2.  Understanding the current state of infection prevention to prevent Clostridium difficile infection: a human factors and systems engineering approach.

Authors:  Eric Yanke; Caroline Zellmer; Sarah Van Hoof; Helene Moriarty; Pascale Carayon; Nasia Safdar
Journal:  Am J Infect Control       Date:  2015-03-01       Impact factor: 2.918

3.  [Surgical instruments (II). An introduction to surgical instruments].

Authors:  Emilio Illana Esteban
Journal:  Rev Enferm       Date:  2005-09

4.  Application of Lean Methodology for Improved Quality and Efficiency in Operating Room Instrument Availability.

Authors:  Farrokh R Farrokhi; Maria Gunther; Barbara Williams; Christopher Craig Blackmore
Journal:  J Healthc Qual       Date:  2015 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 1.095

5.  Surgical tray optimization as a simple means to decrease perioperative costs.

Authors:  James S Farrelly; Crystal Clemons; Sherri Witkins; Walter Hall; Emily R Christison-Lagay; Doruk E Ozgediz; Robert A Cowles; David H Stitelman; Michael G Caty
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2017-08-12       Impact factor: 2.192

6.  A Work Systems Analysis of Sterile Processing: Sterilization and Case Cart Preparation.

Authors:  Myrtede Alfred; Ken Catchpole; Emily Huffer; Kevin Taafe; Larry Fredendall
Journal:  Adv Health Care Manag       Date:  2019-10-24

7.  Macroegonomics: work system analysis and design.

Authors:  Brian M Kleiner
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 2.888

8.  Macroergonomics in Healthcare Quality and Patient Safety.

Authors:  Pascale Carayon; Ben-Tzion Karsh; Ayse P Gurses; Richard Holden; Peter Hoonakker; Ann Schoofs Hundt; Enid Montague; Joy Rodriguez; Tosha B Wetterneck
Journal:  Rev Hum Factors Ergon       Date:  2013-09-01

9.  Better instructions for use to improve reusable medical equipment (RME) sterility.

Authors:  Jonathan D Jolly; Emily A Hildebrand; Russell J Branaghan
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 2.888

10.  Work Domain Analysis for understanding medication safety in care homes in England: an exploratory study.

Authors:  Rosemary H M Lim; Janet E Anderson; Peter W Buckle
Journal:  Ergonomics       Date:  2015-07-28       Impact factor: 2.778

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.