Dataset Information

The risk of ergonomic injury across surgical specialties.

ABSTRACT: Lack of ergonomic training and poor ergonomic habits during the operation leads to musculoskeletal pain and affects the surgeon's life outside of work. The objective of the study was to evaluate the severity of ergonomic hazards in the surgical profession across a wide range of surgical subspecialties. We conducted intraoperative observations using Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA) score system to identify ergonomic hazards. Additionally, each of the ten surgical subspecialty departments were sent an optional 14 question survey which evaluated ergonomic practice, environmental infrastructure, and prior ergonomic training or education. A total of 91 surgeons received intraoperative observation and were evaluated on the REBA scale with a minimum score of 0 (low ergonomic risk <3) and a maximum score of 10 (high ergonomic risk 8-10). And a total of 389 surgeons received the survey and 167 (43%) surgeons responded. Of the respondents, 69.7% reported suffering from musculoskeletal pain. Furthermore, 54.9% of the surgeons reported suffering from the highest level of pain when standing during surgery, while only 14.4% experienced pain when sitting. Importantly, 47.7% stated the pain impacted their work, while 59.5% reported pain affecting quality of life outside of work. Only 23.8% of surgeons had any prior ergonomic education. Both our subjective and objective data suggest that pain and disability induced by poor ergonomics are widespread among the surgical community and confirm that surgeons rarely receive ergonomic training. Intraoperative observational findings identified that the majority of observed surgeons displayed poor posture, particularly a poor cervical angle and use of ergonomic setups, both of which increase ergonomic risk hazards. This data supports the need for a comprehensive ergonomic interventional program for the surgical team and offers potential targets for future intervention.

SUBMITTER: Aaron KA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7872272 | biostudies-literature | 2021

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The risk of ergonomic injury across surgical specialties.

Aaron Ksenia A KA Vaughan John J Gupta Raghav R Ali Noor-E-Seher NE Beth Alicia H AH Moore Justin M JM Ma Yifei Y Ahmad Iram I Jackler Robert K RK Vaisbuch Yona Y

PloS one 20210209 2

Lack of ergonomic training and poor ergonomic habits during the operation leads to musculoskeletal pain and affects the surgeon's life outside of work. The objective of the study was to evaluate the severity of ergonomic hazards in the surgical profession across a wide range of surgical subspecialties. We conducted intraoperative observations using Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA) score system to identify ergonomic hazards. Additionally, each of the ten surgical subspecialty departments were ...[more]

PMID: 33561117

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceWhile telehealth use in surgery has shown to be feasible, telehealth became a major modality of health care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic.ObjectiveTo assess patterns of telehealth use across surgical specialties before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.Design, setting, and participantsInsurance claims from a Michigan statewide commercial payer for new patient visits with a surgeon from 1 of 9 surgical specialties during one of the following periods: prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (period 1: January 5 to March 7, 2020), early pandemic (period 2: March 8 to June 6, 2020), and late pandemic (period 3: June 7 to September 5, 2020).ExposuresTelehealth implementation owing to the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020.Main outcomes and measures(1) Conversion rate defined as the rate of weekly new patient telehealth visits divided by mean weekly number of total new patient visits in 2019. This outcome adjusts for a substantial decrease in outpatient care during the pandemic. (2) Weekly number of new patient telehealth visits divided by weekly number of total new patient visits.ResultsAmong 4405 surgeons in the cohort, 2588 (58.8%) performed telehealth in any patient care context. Specifically for new patient visits, 1182 surgeons (26.8%) used telehealth. A total of 109 610 surgical new outpatient visits were identified during the pandemic. The median (interquartile range) age of telehealth patients was 46.8 (34.1-58.4) years compared with 52.6 (38.3-62.3) years for patients who received care in-person. Prior to March 2020, less than 1% (8 of 173 939) of new patient visits were conducted through telehealth. Telehealth use peaked in April 2020 (week 14) and facilitated 34.6% (479 of 1383) of all new patient visits during that week. The telehealth conversion rate peaked in April 2020 (week 15) and was equal to 8.2% of the 2019 mean weekly new patient visit volume. During period 2, a mean (SD) of 16.6% (12.0%) of all new patient surgical visits were conducted via telehealth (conversion rate of 5.1% of 2019 mean weekly new patient visit volumes). During period 3, 3.0% (2168 of 71 819) of all new patient surgical visits were conducted via telehealth (conversion rate of 2.5% of 2019 new patient visit volumes). Mean (SD) telehealth conversion rates varied by specialty with urology being the highest (14.3% [7.7%]).Conclusions and relevanceResults from this study showed that telehealth use grew across all surgical specialties in Michigan in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. While rates of telehealth use have declined as in-person care has resumed, telehealth use remains substantially higher across all surgical specialties than it was prior to the pandemic.

Project description:ImportanceFrailty is an important risk factor for postoperative mortality. Whether the association between frailty and mortality is consistent across all surgical specialties, especially those predominantly performing lower stress procedures, remains unknown.ObjectiveTo examine the association between frailty and postoperative mortality across surgical specialties.Design, setting, and participantsA cohort study was conducted across 9 noncardiac specialties in hospitals participating in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) and Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program (VASQIP) from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2014, using multivariable logistic regression to evaluate the association between frailty and postoperative mortality. Data analysis was conducted from September 15, 2019, to April 30, 2020. Patients 18 years or older undergoing noncardiac procedures were included.ExposuresRisk Analysis Index measuring preoperative frailty categorized patients as robust (Risk Analysis Index ≤20), normal (21-29), frail (30-39), or very frail (≥40). Operative Stress Score (OSS) categorized procedures as low (1-2), moderate (3), and high (4-5) stress. Specialties were categorized by case-mix as predominantly low intensity (>75% OSS 1-2), moderate intensity (50%-75%), or high intensity (<50%).Main outcomes and measuresThirty-day (both measures) and 180-day (VASQIP only) postoperative mortality.ResultsOf the patients evaluated in NSQIP (n = 2 339 031), 1 309 795 were women (56.0%) and mean (SD) age was 56.49 (16.4) years. Of the patients evaluated in VASQIP (n = 426 578), 395 761 (92.78%) were men and mean (SD) age was 61.1 (12.9) years. Overall, 30-day mortality was 1.2% in NSQIP and 1.0% in VASQIP, and 180-day mortality in VASQIP was 3.4%. Frailty and OSS distributions differed substantially across the 9 specialties. Patterns of 30-day mortality for frail and very frail patients were similar in NSQIP and VASQIP for low-, moderate-, and high-intensity specialties. Frailty was a consistent, independent risk factor for 30- and 180-day mortality across all specialties. For example, in NSQIP, for plastic surgery, a low-intensity specialty, the odds of 30-day mortality in very frail (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 27.99; 95% CI, 14.67-53.39) and frail (aOR, 5.1; 95% CI, 3.03-8.58) patients were statistically significantly higher than for normal patients. This was also true in neurosurgery, a moderate-intensity specialty, for very frail (aOR, 9.8; 95% CI, 7.68-12.50) and frail (aOR, 4.18; 95% CI, 3.58-4.89) patients and in vascular surgery, a high-intensity specialty, for very frail (aOR, 10.85; 95% CI, 9.83-11.96) and frail (aOR, 3.42; 95% CI, 3.19-3.67) patients.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, frailty was associated with postoperative mortality across all noncardiac surgical specialties regardless of case-mix. Preoperative frailty assessment could be implemented across all specialties to facilitate risk stratification and shared decision-making.

Project description:The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between the Timed Up and Go test and postoperative morbidity and 1-year mortality, and to compare the Timed Up and Go to the standard-of-care surgical risk calculators for prediction of postoperative complications.In this prospective cohort study, patients 65 years and older undergoing elective colorectal and cardiac operations with a minimum of 1-year follow-up were included. The Timed Up and Go test was performed preoperatively. This timed test starts with the subject standing from a chair, walking 10 feet, returning to the chair, and ends after the subject sits. Timed Up and Go results were grouped as fast ? 10 seconds, intermediate = 11-14 seconds, and slow ? 15 seconds. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to compare the 3 Timed Up and Go groups to current standard-of-care surgical risk calculators at forecasting postoperative complications.This study included 272 subjects (mean age of 74 ± 6 years). Slower Timed Up and Go was associated with increased postoperative complications after colorectal (fast 13%, intermediate 29%, and slow 77%; P < 0.001) and cardiac (fast 11%, intermediate 26%, and slow 52%; P < 0.001) operations. Slower Timed Up and Go was associated with increased 1-year mortality following both colorectal (fast 3%, intermediate 10%, and slow 31%; P = 0.006) and cardiac (fast 2%, intermediate 3%, and slow 12%; P = 0.039) operations. Receiver operating characteristic area under curve of the Timed Up and Go and the risk calculators for the colorectal group was 0.775 (95% CI: 0.670-0.880) and 0.554 (95% CI: 0.499-0.609), and for the cardiac group was 0.684 (95% CI: 0.603-0.766) and 0.552 (95% CI: 0.477-0.626).Slower Timed Up and Go forecasted increased postoperative complications and 1-year mortality across surgical specialties. Regardless of operation performed, the Timed Up and Go compared favorably to the more complex risk calculators at forecasting postoperative complications.

Project description:IntroductionCompassion fatigue (CF) is the emotional and physical burden felt by those helping others in distress, leading to a reduced capacity and interest in being empathetic towards future suffering. Emergency care providers are at an increased risk of CF secondary to their first responder roles and exposure to traumatic events. We aimed to investigate the current state of compassion fatigue among emergency medicine (EM) resident physicians, including an assessment of contributing factors.MethodsWe distributed a validated electronic questionnaire consisting of the Professional Quality of Life Scale with subscales for the three components of CF (compassion satisfaction, burnout and secondary traumatic stress), with each category scored independently. We collected data pertaining to day- versus night-shift distribution, hourly workload and child dependents. We included residents in EM, neurology, orthopedics, family medicine, pediatrics, obstetrics, and general surgery.ResultsWe surveyed 255 residents, with a response rate of 75%. Of the 188 resident respondents, 18% worked a majority of their clinical shifts overnight, and 32% had child dependents. Burnout scores for residents who worked greater than 80 hours per week, or primarily worked overnight shifts, were higher than residents who worked less than 80 hours (mean score 25.0 vs 21.5; p=0.013), or did not work overnight (mean score 23.5 vs 21.3; p=0.022). EM residents had similar scores in all three components of CF when compared to other specialties. Secondary traumatic stress scores for residents who worked greater than 80 hours were higher than residents who worked less than 80 hours (mean score 22.2 vs 19.5; p=0.048), and those with child dependents had higher secondary traumatic stress than those without children (mean score 21.0 vs 19.1; p=0.012).ConclusionCF scores in EM residents are similar to residents in other surgical and medical specialties. Residents working primarily night shifts and those working more than 80 hours per week appear to be at high risk of developing compassion fatigue. Residents with children are more likely to experience secondary traumatic stress.

Project description:BackgroundThe World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing a joint methodology for estimating the national and global work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO joint methodology), with contributions from a large network of experts. In this paper, we present the protocol for two systematic reviews of parameters for estimating the number of disability-adjusted life years from osteoarthritis of hip or knee, and selected other musculoskeletal diseases respectively, attributable to exposure to occupational ergonomic risk factors to inform the development of the WHO/ILO joint methodology.ObjectivesWe aim to systematically review studies on exposure to occupational ergonomic risk factors (Systematic Review 1) and systematically review and meta-analyze estimates of the effect of exposure to occupational ergonomic risk factors on osteoarthritis of the hip or knee, and selected other musculoskeletal diseases respectively (Systematic Review 2), applying the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology as an organizing framework, conducting both systematic reviews in tandem and in a harmonized way.Data sourcesSeparately for Systematic Reviews 1 and 2, we will search electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science and CISDOC. We will also search electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-search reference lists of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consult additional experts.Study eligibility and criteriaWe will include working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State, but exclude children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. The included occupational ergonomic risk factors will be any exposure to one or more of: force exertion; demanding posture; repetitiveness; hand-arm vibration; lifting; kneeling and/or squatting; and climbing. Included outcomes will be (i) osteoarthritis and (ii) other musculoskeletal diseases (i.e., one or more of: rotator cuff syndrome; bicipital tendinitis; calcific tendinitis; shoulder impingement; bursitis shoulder; epicondylitis medialis; epicondylitis lateralis; bursitis elbow; bursitis hip; chondromalacia patellae; meniscus disorders; and/or bursitis knee). For Systematic Review 1, we will include quantitative prevalence studies of any exposure to occupational ergonomic risk factors stratified by country, gender, age and industrial sector or occupation. For Systematic Review 2, we will include randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control-studies and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the relative effect of any exposure with occupational ergonomic risk factors on the prevalence or incidence of osteoarthritis and/or selected musculoskeletal diseases, compared with the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (i.e., no exposure).Study appraisal and synthesis methodsAt least two review authors will independently screen titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. At least two review authors will assess risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using the most suited tools currently available. For Systematic Review 2, if feasible, we will combine relative risks using meta-analysis. We will report results using the guidelines for accurate and transparent health estimates reporting (GATHER) for Systematic Review 1 and the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines (PRISMA) for Systematic Review 2. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018102631.

Project description:BACKGROUND:There has been a global increase in the incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI), including among critically-ill surgical patients. AKI prediction score provides an opportunity for early detection of patients who are at risk of AKI; however, most of the AKI prediction scores were derived from cardiothoracic surgery. Therefore, we aimed to develop an AKI prediction score for major non-cardiothoracic surgery patients who were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS:The data of critically-ill patients from non-cardiothoracic operations in the Thai Surgical Intensive Care Unit (THAI-SICU) study were used to develop an AKI prediction score. Independent prognostic factors from regression analysis were included as predictors in the model. The outcome of interest was AKI within 7?days after the ICU admission. The AKI diagnosis was made according to the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO)-2012 serum creatinine criteria. Diagnostic function of the model was determined by area under the Receiver Operating Curve (AuROC). Risk scores were categorized into four risk probability levels: low (0-2.5), moderate (3.0-8.5), high (9.0-11.5), and very high (12.0-16.5) risk. Risk of AKI was presented as likelihood ratios of positive (LH+). RESULTS:A total of 3474 critically-ill surgical patients were included in the model; 333 (9.6%) developed AKI. Using multivariable logistic regression analysis, older age, high Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) non-renal score, emergency surgery, large volume of perioperative blood loss, less urine output, and sepsis were identified as independent predictors for AKI. Then AKI prediction score was created from these predictors. The summation of the score was 16.5 and had a discriminative ability for predicting AKI at AuROC?=?0.839 (95% CI 0.825-0.852). LH+ for AKI were: low risk?=?0.117 (0.063-0.200); moderate risk?=?0.927 (0.745-1.148); high risk?=?5.190 (3.881-6.910); and very high risk?=?9.892 (6.230-15.695), respectively. CONCLUSIONS:The function of AKI prediction score to predict AKI among critically ill patients who underwent non-cardiothoracic surgery was good. It can aid in early recognition of critically-ill surgical patients who are at risk from ICU admission. The scores could guide decision making for aggressive strategies to prevent AKI during the perioperative period or at ICU admission. TRIAL REGISTRATION:TCTR20190408004, registered on April 4, 2019.

Dataset Information

The risk of ergonomic injury across surgical specialties.

Publications

The risk of ergonomic injury across surgical specialties.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets