Dataset Information

An observational study of distractions in the operating theatre.

ABSTRACT: Several studies have reported on the negative impact of interruptions and distractions on anaesthetic, surgical and team performance in the operating theatre. This study aimed to gain a deeper understanding of these events and why they remain part of everyday clinical practice. We used a mixed methods observational study design. We scored each distractor and interruption according to an established scheme during induction of anaesthesia and the surgical procedure for 58 general surgical cases requiring general anaesthesia. We made field notes of observations, small conversations and meetings. We observed 64 members of staff for 148 hours and recorded 4594 events, giving a mean (SD) event rate of 32.8 (16.3) h^-1 . The most frequent events observed during induction of anaesthesia were door movements, which accounted for 869 (63%) events, giving a mean (SD) event rate of 28.1 (14.5) h^-1 . These, however, had little impact. The most common events observed during surgery were case-irrelevant verbal communication and smartphone usage, which accounted for 1020 (32%) events, giving a mean (SD) event rate of 9.0 (4.2) h^-1 . These occurred mostly in periods of low work-load in a sub-team. Participants ranged from experiencing these events as severe disruption through to a welcome distraction that served to keep healthcare professionals active during low work-load, as well as reinforcing the social connections between colleagues. Mostly, team members showed no awareness of the need for silence among other sub-teams and did not vocalise the need for silence to others. Case-irrelevant verbal communication and smartphone usage may serve a physical and psychological need. The extent to which healthcare professionals may feel disrupted depends on the situation and context. When a team member was disrupted, a resilient team response often lacked. Reducing disruptive social activity might be a powerful strategy to develop a habit of cross-monitoring and mutual help across surgical and anaesthetic sub-teams. Further research is needed on how to bridge cultural borders and develop resilient interprofessional behaviours.

SUBMITTER: van Harten A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7891421 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

An observational study of distractions in the operating theatre.

van Harten A A Gooszen H G HG Koksma J J JJ Niessen T J H TJH Abma T A TA

Anaesthesia 20200817 3

Several studies have reported on the negative impact of interruptions and distractions on anaesthetic, surgical and team performance in the operating theatre. This study aimed to gain a deeper understanding of these events and why they remain part of everyday clinical practice. We used a mixed methods observational study design. We scored each distractor and interruption according to an established scheme during induction of anaesthesia and the surgical procedure for 58 general surgical cases re ...[more]

PMID: 33252139

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDistractions during surgical procedures are associated with team inefficiency and medical error. Little is published about the healthcare provider's perception of distraction and its adverse impact in the operating room. We aim to explore the perception of the operating room team on multiple distractions during surgical procedures.MethodsA 26-question survey was administered to surgeons, anesthesia team members, nurses, and scrub technicians at our institution. Respondents were asked to identify and rank multiple distractions and indicate how each distraction might affect the flow of surgery.ResultsThere was 160 responders for a response rate of 19.18% (160/834), of which 71 (44.1%) male and 82 (50.9%) female, 48 (29.8%) surgeons, 59 (36.6%) anesthesiologists, Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNA), and 53 (32.9%) OR nurses and scrub technicians. Responders were classified into a junior group (< 10 years of experience) and a senior group (≥ 10 years). Auditory distraction followed by equipment were the most distracting factors in the operating room. All potential auditory distractions in this survey were associated with higher percentage of certain level of negative impact on the flow of surgery except for music. The top 5 distractors belonged to equipment and environment categories. Phone calls/ pagers/ beepers and case relevant communications were consistently among the top 5 most common distractors. Case relevant communications, music, teaching, and consultation were the top 4 most perceived positive impact on the flow of surgery. Distractors with higher levels of "bothersome" rating appeared to associate with a higher level of perceived negative impact on the flow of surgery. Vision was the least distracting factor and appeared to cause minimal positive impact on the flow of surgery.ConclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first survey studying perception of surgery, anesthesia, and OR staff on various distractions in the operating room. Fewer unnecessary distractions might improve the flow of surgery, improve OR teamwork, and potentially improve patient outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundOperating theatre personnel are at increased risk for transmission of blood borne pathogens when passing sharp instruments. The hands-free technique, whereby a tray or other means are used to eliminate simultaneous handling of sharp instruments, has been recommended.AimsTo prospectively evaluate the effectiveness of the hands-free technique in reducing the incidence of percutaneous injuries, contaminations, and glove tears arising from handling sharp instruments.MethodsFor each of 3765 operations carried out in main and surgical day care operating theatres in a large urban hospital, over six months, circulating nurses recorded the proportion of use of the hands-free technique during each operation, as well as other features of the operation. The hands-free technique, considered to be used when 75% or more of the passes in an operation were done in this way, was used in 42% of operations. The relative rate of incidents (percutaneous injuries, contaminations, and glove tears) in operations where the hands-free technique was used and not used, with adjustment via multiple logistic regression for the different risk profiles of the two sets of operations, was calculated.ResultsA total of 143 incidents (40 percutaneous injuries, 51 contaminations, and 52 glove tears) were reported. In operations with greater than 100 ml blood loss, the incident rate was 4% (18/486) when the hands-free technique was used and 10% (90/880) when it was not, approximately 60% less. When adjusted for differences in type and duration of surgery, emergency status, noisiness, time of day, and number present for 75% of the operation, the reduction in the rate was 59% (95% CI 23% to 72%). In operations with less than 100 ml blood loss, the corresponding rates were 1.4% (15/1051) when the hands-free technique was used and 1.5% (19/1259) when it was not used. Adjustment for differences in risk factors did not alter the difference.ConclusionsAlthough not effective in all operations, use of the hands-free technique was effective in operations with more substantial blood loss.

Dataset Information

An observational study of distractions in the operating theatre.

Publications

An observational study of distractions in the operating theatre.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets