Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
1.
Surg Endosc ; 26(10): 2931-8, 2012 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22538692

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Communication is important for patient safety in the operating room (OR). Several studies have assessed OR communications qualitatively or have focused on communication in crisis situations. This study used prospective, quantitative observation based on well-established communication theory to assess similarities and differences in communication patterns between open and laparoscopic surgery. METHODS: Based on communication theory, a standardized proforma was developed for assessment in the OR via real-time observation of communication types, their purpose, their content, and their initiators/recipients. Data were collected prospectively in real time in the OR for 20 open and 20 laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairs. Assessors were trained and calibrated, and their reliability was established statistically. RESULTS: During 1,884 min of operative time, 4,227 communications were observed and analyzed (2,043 laparoscopic vs 2,184 open communications). The mean operative duration (laparoscopic, 48 min vs open, 47 min), mean communication frequency (laparoscopic, 102 communications/procedure vs open, 109 communications/procedure), and mean communication rate (laparoscopic, 2.13 communications/min vs open, 2.23 communications/min) did not differ significantly across laparoscopic and open procedures. Communications were most likely to be initiated by surgeons (80-81 %), to be received by either other surgeons (46-50%) or OR nurses (38-40 %), to be associated with equipment/procedural issues (39-47 %), and to provide direction for the OR team (38-46%) in open and laparoscopic cases. Moreover, communications in laparoscopic cases were significantly more equipment related (laparoscopic, 47 % vs open, 39 %) and aimed significantly more at providing direction (laparoscopic, 46 % vs open, 38 %) and at consulting (laparoscopic, 17 % vs open, 12 %) than at sharing information (laparoscopic, 17 % vs open, 31 %) (P < 0.001 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Numerous intraoperative communications were found in both laparoscopic and open cases during a relatively low-risk procedure (average, 2 communications/min). In the observed cases, surgeons actively directed and led OR teams in the intraoperative phase. The lack of communication between surgeons and anesthesiologists ought to be evaluated further. Simple, inexpensive interventions shown to streamline intraoperative communication and teamworking (preoperative briefing, surgeons' mental practice) should be considered further.


Assuntos
Comunicação , Hérnia Inguinal/cirurgia , Período Intraoperatório , Estudos de Viabilidade , Humanos , Laparoscopia/métodos , Duração da Cirurgia , Segurança do Paciente , Estudos Prospectivos , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes
2.
Surg Endosc ; 25(6): 1913-20, 2011 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21136100

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Safe surgical care requires effective information transfer between members of the operating room (OR) team. The present study aims to assess directly, systematically, and comprehensively, information needs of all OR team-members. METHODS: Thirty-three OR team-members (16 surgeons/anesthesiologists, 17 nurses) took part in a mixed-method interview. Participants indicated what information they need, their problems accessing it, and potential interventions to improve information transfer. They also rated the importance of different sources of information and the quality (accuracy, availability, timeliness, completeness, and clarity) of the information that they typically receive. Theme extraction and statistical analyses (descriptive and inferential) were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: The patient emerged as the top source of information. Surgeons and anesthesiologists relied more on information from fellow clinicians, as well as information originating from diagnostic and imaging labs. They were also more critical about the quality of the information than nursing personnel. Anesthesiologists emerged as the most reliable source of information, whereas information coming from surgeons was deemed lacking in quality (even by surgeons themselves). Finally, the more time participants had spent working in ORs, the more negative views they had about the information that they receive-an unexpected finding. Communication skills training, standardized communication protocols, and information technology (IT) systems to function as a central information repository were the top three proposed interventions. CONCLUSIONS: This study comprehensively maps information sources, problems, and solutions expressed by OR end-users. Recent developments in skills training modules and patient safety interventions for the OR (Surgical Safety Checklist) are discussed as potential interventions that will ameliorate communication in ORs, with a view to enhance patient safety and surgical care.


Assuntos
Comunicação , Relações Interprofissionais , Equipe de Assistência ao Paciente/organização & administração , Adulto , Anestesiologia , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Enfermagem de Centro Cirúrgico , Relações Médico-Enfermeiro , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Operatórios
3.
Int J Surg ; 10(7): 355-9, 2012.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22641122

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Clinical handover (handoff, sign out) is frequently implicated as a cause of adverse events in hospitalised patients. Complex social interactions such as handover are subject to the teamwork skills of the participants and there is increasing evidence that the quality of teamwork in handover affects outcome. Teamwork skills have been assessed in one-to-one handovers but the applicability of these measurement tools to healthcare team shift handovers remains unproven. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of measurement of teamwork skills in shift handover and the applicability of adapted teamwork skills rating scales to a shift handover environment. METHODS: Morning surgical shift handovers were assessed for completeness of information transfer, duration, interruptions and handover attendance. Handover teamwork skills were evaluated using two validated rating scales, adapted from one-to-one handovers and intra-operative teamwork skill measurement. RESULTS: 50 handovers, including 306 patients were observed. Communication checklist completion was 97% but the quality of teamwork skills varied widely between handovers. There was very good concurrent validity between the two teamwork skill rating scales (Spearman's rho = 0.67, p < 0.001). There was no significant correlation between content completion, duration, interruptions or attendance and teamwork skill ratings. CONCLUSIONS: Teamwork skills vary widely between handovers and can be consistently scored using both rating scales. It is feasible to use adapted teamwork skill rating scales in shift handover and they appear to measure different constructs to traditional handover measures such as interruptions and communication checklist completion. The assessment of teamwork skills is a necessary complement to the assessment of completeness of information transfer when evaluating the overall quality of handover.


Assuntos
Continuidade da Assistência ao Paciente/normas , Equipe de Assistência ao Paciente/normas , Transferência da Responsabilidade pelo Paciente/normas , Centro Cirúrgico Hospitalar/normas , Hospitalização , Humanos , Disseminação de Informação , Assistência Perioperatória/normas , Estudos Prospectivos , Recursos Humanos
4.
BMJ Qual Saf ; 20(10): 849-56, 2011 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21610266

RESUMO

AIM: Team performance is important in multidisciplinary teams (MDTs), but no tools exist for assessment. Our objective was to construct a robust tool for scientific assessment of MDT performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An observational tool was developed to assess performance in MDTs. Behaviours were scored on Likert scales, with objective anchors. Five MDT meetings (112 cases) were observed by a surgeon and a psychologist. The presentation of case history, radiological and pathological information, chair's effectiveness, and contributions to decision-making of surgeons, oncologists, radiologists, pathologists and clinical nurse specialists (CNSs) are analysed via descriptive statistics, a comparison of average scores (Mann-Whitney U) to test interobserver agreement and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) to further assess interobserver agreement and learning curves. RESULTS: Contributions of surgeons, chair's effectiveness, presentation of case history and radiological information were rated above average (p ≤ 0.001). Contributions of histopathologists and CNS were rated below average (p ≤ 0.001), and others average. The interobserver agreement was high (ICC = 0.70+) for presentation of radiological information, and contribution of oncologists, radiologists, pathologists and CNSs; adequate for case history presentation (ICC = 0.68) and contribution of surgeons (ICC = 0.69); moderate for chairperson (ICC = 0.52); and poor for pathological information (ICC = 0.31). Average differences were found only for case-history presentation (p ≤ 0.001). ICCs improved significantly in assessment of case history, and Oncologists, and ICCs were consistently high for CNS, Radiologists, and Histopathologists. CONCLUSIONS: Scientific observational metrics can be reliably used by medical and non-medical observers in cancer MDTs. Such robust assessment tools provide part of a toolkit for team evaluation and enhancement.


Assuntos
Atitude do Pessoal de Saúde , Serviço Hospitalar de Oncologia/organização & administração , Equipe de Assistência ao Paciente/organização & administração , Análise e Desempenho de Tarefas , Tomada de Decisões , Humanos , Relações Interprofissionais , Variações Dependentes do Observador
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA