Literature DB >> 33469695

Barriers to safety and efficiency in robotic surgery docking.

Lucy Cofran1, Tara Cohen2, Myrtede Alfred1, Falisha Kanji2, Eunice Choi2, Stephen Savage3, Jennifer Anger4, Ken Catchpole5,6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The introduction of new technology into the operating room (OR) can be beneficial for patients, but can also create new problems and complexities for physicians and staff. The observation of flow disruptions (FDs)-small deviations from the optimal course of care-can be used to understand how systems problems manifest. Prior studies showed that the docking process in robotic assisted surgery (RAS), which requires careful management of process, people, technology and working environment, might be a particularly challenging part of the operation. We sought to explore variation across multiple clinical sites and procedures; and to examine the sources of those disruptions.
METHODS: Trained observers recorded FDs during 45 procedures across multiple specialties at three different hospitals. The rate of FDs was compared across surgical phases, sites, and types of procedure. A work-system flow of the RAS docking procedure was used to determine which steps were most disrupted.
RESULTS: The docking process was significantly more disrupted than other procedural phases, with no effect of hospital site, and a potential interaction with procedure type. Particular challenges were encountered in room organization, retrieval of supplies, positioning the patient, and maneuvering the robot.
CONCLUSIONS: Direct observation of surgical procedures can help to identify approaches to improve the design of technology and procedures, the training of staff, and configuration of the OR environment, with the eventual goal of improving safety, efficiency and teamwork in high technology surgery.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Flow disruptions; Human factors; Robotics; Safety; Surgery; Teamwork

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33469695      PMCID: PMC8286975          DOI: 10.1007/s00464-020-08258-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  25 in total

1.  Identifying workflow disruptions in the cardiovascular operating room.

Authors:  T N Cohen; J S Cabrera; O D Sisk; K L Welsh; J H Abernathy; S T Reeves; D A Wiegmann; S A Shappell; A J Boquet
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 6.955

2.  A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research.

Authors:  Terry K Koo; Mae Y Li
Journal:  J Chiropr Med       Date:  2016-03-31

3.  Human factors and cardiac surgery: a multicenter study.

Authors:  M R de Leval; J Carthey; D J Wright; V T Farewell; J T Reason
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 5.209

4.  Diagnosing barriers to safety and efficiency in robotic surgery.

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

Review 5.  The evolution of robotic surgery: surgical and anaesthetic aspects.

Authors:  H Ashrafian; O Clancy; V Grover; A Darzi
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2017-12-01       Impact factor: 9.166

6.  Identification of systems failures in successful paediatric cardiac surgery.

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

7.  Surgical flow disruptions during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy.

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

8.  Barriers to efficiency in robotic surgery: the resident effect.

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

9.  Disruptions in surgical flow and their relationship to surgical errors: an exploratory investigation.

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

Review 10.  Human factors in robotic assisted surgery: Lessons from studies 'in the Wild'.

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

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Factors affecting workflow in robot-assisted surgery: a scoping review.

Authors:  Jannie Lysgaard Poulsen; Birgitte Bruun; Doris Oestergaard; Lene Spanager
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2022-06-23       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  A Novel Approach for Engagement in Team Training in High-Technology Surgery: The Robotic-Assisted Surgery Olympics.

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

3.  Is non-stop always better? Examining assumptions behind the concept of flow disruptions in studies of robot-assisted surgery.

Authors:  Birgitte Bruun; Jannie Lysgaard Poulsen; Perle Møhl; Lene Spanager
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2021-07-20

4.  'Rise of the Machines': Human Factors and training for robotic-assisted surgery.

Authors:  Fiona Kerray; Steven Yule
Journal:  BMJ Surg Interv Health Technol       Date:  2021-10-18
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.