Lucy Cofran1, Tara Cohen2, Myrtede Alfred1, Falisha Kanji2, Eunice Choi2, Stephen Savage3, Jennifer Anger4, Ken Catchpole5,6. 1. Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 3. Department of Urology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA. 4. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 5. Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA. catchpol@musc.edu. 6. Medical University of South Carolina, Storm Eye Building, 167 Ashley Avenue, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA. catchpol@musc.edu.
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.
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.
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
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: 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: 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: Douglas A Wiegmann; Andrew W ElBardissi; Joseph A Dearani; Richard C Daly; Thoralf M Sundt Journal: Surgery Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 3.982
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
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