Rural implementation of the perioperative surgical home: A case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative surgical home (PSH) is a novel patient-centric surgical system developed by American Society of Anesthesiologist to improve outcomes and patient satisfaction. PSH has proven success in large urban health centers by reducing surgery cancellation, operating room time, length of stay (LOS), and readmission rates. Yet, only limited studies have assessed the impact of PSH on surgical outcomes in rural areas. AIM: To evaluate the newly implemented PSH system at a community hospital by comparing the surgical outcomes using a longitudinal case-control study. METHODS: The research study was conducted at an 83-bed, licensed level-III trauma rural community hospital. A total of 3096 TJR procedures were collected retrospectively between January 2016 and December 2021 and were categorized as PSH and non-PSH cohorts (n = 2305). To evaluate the importance of PSH in the rural surgical system, a case-control study was performed to compare TJR surgical outcomes (LOS, discharge disposition, and 90-d readmission) of the PSH cohort against two control cohorts [Control-1 PSH (C1-PSH) (n = 1413) and Control-2 PSH (C2-PSH) (n = 892)]. Statistical tests including Chi-square test or Fischer's exact test were performed for categorical variables and Mann-Whitney test or Student's t-test were performed for continuous variables. The general linear models (Poisson regression and binomial logistic regression) were performed to fit adjusted models. RESULTS: The LOS was significantly shorter in PSH cohort compared to two control cohorts (median PSH = 34 h, C1-PSH = 53 h, C2-PSH = 35 h) (P value < 0.05). Similarly, the PSH cohort had lower percentages of discharges to other facilities (PSH = 3.5%, C1-PSH = 15.5%, C2-PSH = 6.7%) (P value < 0.05). There was no statistical difference observed in 90-d readmission between control and PSH cohorts. However, the PSH implementation reduced the 90-d readmission percentage (PSH = 4.7%, C1-PSH = 6.1%, C2-PSH = 3.6%) lower than the national average 30-d readmission percentage which is 5.5%. The PSH system was effectively established at the rural community hospital with the help of team-based coordinated multi-disciplinary clinicians or physician co-management. The elements of PSH including preoperative assessment, patient education and optimization, and longitudinal digital engagement were vital for improving the TJR surgical outcomes at the community hospital. CONCLUSION: Implementation of the PSH system in a rural community hospital reduced LOS, increased direct-to-home discharge, and reduced 90-d readmission percentages.

Predicting Length of Stay using machine learning for total joint replacements performed at a rural community hospital.

BACKGROUND: Predicting patient's Length of Stay (LOS) before total joint replacement (TJR) surgery is vital for hospitals to optimally manage costs and resources. Many hospitals including in rural areas use publicly available models such as National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) calculator which, unfortunately, performs suboptimally when predicting LOS for TJR procedures. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research was to develop a Machine Learning (ML) model to predict LOS for TJR procedures performed at a Perioperative Surgical Home implemented rural community hospital for better accuracy and interpretation than the NSQIP calculator. METHODS: A total of 158 TJR patients were collected and analyzed from a rural community hospital located in Montana. A random forest (RF) model was used to predict patient's LOS. For interpretation, permuted feature importance and partial dependence plot methods were used to identify the important variables and their relationship with the LOS. RESULTS: The root mean square error for the RF model (0.7) was lower than the NSQIP calculator (1.21). The five most important variables for predicting LOS were BMI, Duke Activity Status-Index, diabetes, patient's household income, and patient's age. CONCLUSION: This pilot study is the first of its kind to develop an ML model to predict LOS for TJR procedures that were performed at a small-scale rural community hospital. This pilot study contributes an approach for rural hospitals, making them more independent by developing their own predictions instead of relying on public models.

Kinematic and ergonomic assessment of laparoendoscopic single-site surgical instruments during simulator training tasks.

While laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) appears to be feasible and safe, instrument triangulation, tissue handling, and other bimanual tasks are difficult even for experienced surgeons. Novel technologies emerged to overcome LESS' procedural and ergonomic difficulties of "tunnel vision" and "instrument clashing." Surgeon kinematics, self-reported workload and upper body discomfort were used to compare straight, bent and two articulating instruments while performing two basic surgical tasks in a LESS simulator. All instruments resulted in bilateral elevation and rotation of the shoulders, excessive forearm motion and flexion and ulnar deviation of wrists. Surgeons' adopted non-neutral upper extremity postures and performed excessive joint excursions to compensate for reduced freedom of movement at the single insertion site and to operate the instrument mechanisms. LESS' cosmetic benefits continue to impact laparoscopic surgery and by enabling performance through improved instruments, ergonomic improvement for LESS can reduce negative impact on surgeon well-being and patient safety.

Ergonomic comparison of laparoscopic hand instruments in a single site surgery simulator with novices.

BACKGROUND: Single-site surgery improves cosmesis but increases procedural difficulty. Enhanced instruments could improve procedural efficiency leading to better patient outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One pair of non-articulating (straight) and two different pairs of articulating laparoscopic instruments were evaluated using a peg-transfer surgical task simulator by premedical college students. The instruments were comparatively tested using task performance measures, ergonomic measures, and participant questionnaires. RESULTS: The straight instrument produced significantly higher task performance scores and lower task times compared to both articulating instruments (p < 0.05). The straight instrument required less muscle activation and less wrist deviation than the articulating instruments to perform the same task. Participants rated the straight instrument significantly easier to use and less difficult to complete the task than with either articulating instrument (p < 0.05 for both). CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study suggests that novices have difficulty using articulating instruments and perform better using straight laparoscopic instruments when first attempting LESS surgical tasks. Although a study with post-graduate medical trainees is needed to confirm these results, trainees should initially practice LESS with non-articulating instruments to gain proficiency at basic laparoscopic tasks. Additionally, redesigning articulating instruments to specifically address the spatial constraints and learning curve of LESS may also improve trainee performance and instrument usability.

Quality and safety of minimally invasive surgery: past, present, and future.

Adverse events because of medical errors are a leading cause of death in the United States (US) exceeding the mortality rates of motor vehicle accidents, breast cancer, and AIDS. Improvements can and should be made to reduce the rates of preventable surgical errors because they account for nearly half of all adverse events within hospitals. Although minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has proven patient benefits such as reduced postoperative pain and hospital stay, its operative environment imposes substantial physical and cognitive strain on the surgeon increasing the risk of error. To mitigate errors and protect patients, a multidisciplinary approach is needed to improve MIS. Clinical human factors, and biomedical engineering principles and methodologies can be used to develop and assess laparoscopic surgery instrumentation, practices, and procedures. First, the foundational understanding and the imperative to transform health care into a high-quality and safe system is discussed. Next, a generalized perspective is presented on the impact of the design and redesign of surgical technologies and processes on human performance. Finally, the future of this field and the research needed to further improve the quality and safety of MIS is discussed.

Comparative usability testing of conventional and single incision laparoscopic surgery devices.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to perform competitive usability testing to assess the user experience of conventional laparoscopic and laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) devices. BACKGROUND: Recent advancements in single-incision instrumentation have created more interest in and usage of LESS. However, neither LESS nor its novel multichannel access devices have been thoroughly studied. METHOD: Using a simulation test bed and standardized laparoscopic surgery task, the user experience of three commercially available LESS devices was compared to conventional laparoscopic ports based on time on task, errors, task success, and perceived ease of use. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between devices for time on task, errors, or task success (p > .05). For all devices, there were significantly more recoverable than unrecoverable errors, and errors occurred more frequently during the second phase of the task when the dominant hand was more active (p < .0001). Conventional laparoscopy was rated as easier to use than were the LESS devices (p < .01). CONCLUSION: Device performance of a basic laparoscopic task was similar in both conventional laparoscopy and LESS. Each of the LESS devices facilitated efficient and accurate aiming and grasping movements compared to conventional laparoscopy. Further investigation of human factors and ergonomics of LESS is needed to further develop, evaluate, and refine single-site surgery technologies to create a user experience equivalent to conventional laparoscopy. APPLICATION: Competitive usability testing of medical devices yields objective performance data that can be used to inform purchase decisions and future device design improvements.

Ergonomic evaluation of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery ports in a validated laparoscopic training model.

Although laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) is feasible among expert laparoscopic surgeons, it poses many technical challenges not seen in conventional laparoscopy (CL). Recent technological advancements in single-incision instrumentation have created more interest and widespread usage of LESS. However, neither LESS nor its novel instrumentation have been thoroughly studied or evaluated using human factors and ergonomics techniques. Consequently, the aim of this study was to compare the physical performance of LESS to CL using a standardized task. Wrist and elbow angular movements, range of motion and physical discomfort were assessed for 24 novice participants. There were no significant differences for physical comfort/discomfort ratings or elbow and wrist flexion/extension range of motion between CL and LESS. However, wrist radial/ulnar range of motion was significantly greater in LESS compared to CL (p < 0.05). Additionally, wrist radial/ ulnar range of motion was significantly greater using the SILS Port compared to the GelPOINT (p < 0.05). Although further investigation is needed, LESS resulted in greater wrist deviation and range of motion due to the close proximity of the instruments, restrictive nature of the single-port devices, and the need to achieve adequate instrument triangulation and visualization.