Retained surgical items and minimally invasive surgery.

A retained surgical item is a surgical patient safety problem. Early reports have focused on the epidemiology of retained-item cases and the identification of patient risk factors for retention. We now know that retention has very little to do with patient characteristics and everything to do with operating room culture. It is a perception that minimally invasive procedures are safer with regard to the risk of retention. Minimally invasive surgery is still an operation where an incision is made and surgical tools are placed inside of patients, so these cases are not immune to the problem of inadvertent retention. Retained surgical items occur because of problems with multi-stakeholder operating room practices and problems in communication. The prevention of retained surgical items will therefore require practice change, knowledge, and shared information between all perioperative personnel.

Patient safety practices in the operating room: correct-site surgery and nothing left behind.

Not until the late 1990s, after the publication of the National Academy of Medicine's treatise "To Err Is Human," did safety standards specifically for patients begin to be considered in operating room practices. This report and other studies documented operating room mistakes including, for example, operations on the wrong hand or limb, operations on the wrong patient, and the performance of wrong procedures. Cases have also been documented of sponges or instruments being left by mistake inside patients following surgery. Poor communication is the most common root cause of errors. This article explores these issues and explains procedures and protocols developed to reduce surgical errors.

Thinking in three's: changing surgical patient safety practices in the complex modern operating room.

The three surgical patient safety events, wrong site surgery, retained surgical items (RSI) and surgical fires are rare occurrences and thus their effects on the complex modern operating room (OR) are difficult to study. The likelihood of occurrence and the magnitude of risk for each of these surgical safety events are undefined. Many providers may never have a personal experience with one of these events and training and education on these topics are sparse. These circumstances lead to faulty thinking that a provider won't ever have an event or if one does occur the provider will intuitively know what to do. Surgeons are not preoccupied with failure and tend to usually consider good outcomes, which leads them to ignore or diminish the importance of implementing and following simple safety practices. These circumstances contribute to the persistent low level occurrence of these three events and to the difficulty in generating sufficient interest to resource solutions. Individual facilities rarely have the time or talent to understand these events and develop lasting solutions. More often than not, even the most well meaning internal review results in a new line to a policy and some rigorous enforcement mandate. This approach routinely fails and is another reason why these problems are so persistent. Vigilance actions alone have been unsuccessful so hospitals now have to take a systematic approach to implementing safer processes and providing the resources for surgeons and other stakeholders to optimize the OR environment. This article discusses standardized processes of care for mitigation of injury or outright prevention of wrong site surgery, RSI and surgical fires in an action-oriented framework illustrating the strategic elements important in each event and focusing on the responsibilities for each of the three major OR agents-anesthesiologists, surgeons and nurses. A Surgical Patient Safety Checklist is discussed that incorporates the necessary elements to bring these team members together and influence the emergence of a safer OR.

A system-wide initiative to prevent retained vaginal sponges.

As any perinatal nurse knows, retained vaginal sponges are an obstetrical and postpartum patient safety problem. As surgical sponge counts are not routine in some obstetrical units for vaginal births, our healthcare system chose to institute a rigorous process to eliminate retained sponges in all vaginal births. This article describes this process, along with the lessons learned, when Catholic Healthcare West implemented the Sponge ACCOUNTing System in its 32 hospitals in California, Arizona, and Nevada. Implementation of this process involved the standardization of practice for obstetricians, certified nurse midwives, nurses, obstetric technicians, radiologists, and radiology technicians in the management and accounting of surgical sponges.

Accuracy of plain abdominal radiographs in the detection of retained surgical needles in the peritoneal cavity.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy of plain abdominal radiographs in the detection of retained surgical needles of varying size in the peritoneal cavity. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Accidental retention of surgical foreign bodies in the peritoneal cavity is estimated to occur once in every 1000 to 1500 abdominal operations and early prevention and identification of retained foreign bodies is increasingly important because of mounting public awareness. Most of the existing literature on the imaging detection of surgical foreign bodies has focused on retained sponges, even though retained needles may account for up to 50% of such objects and the true accuracy of plain abdominal radiographs in the detection of retained needles is not well established. METHODS: Eight plain radiographs were obtained of a 41 kg pig cadaver after placement of a total of 39 surgical needles of varying size (4-77 mm in length) in a randomized selection of the 9 segments of the peritoneal cavity. Five radiologists independently reviewed the radiographs and indicated the location of all suspected retained needles. Analyses were performed using the known site and size of placed needles as the standard of reference. RESULTS: In total for all readers, 195 needles were detectable in 360 abdominal segments. The overall mean accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity for plain radiographs in the detection of retained surgical needles were 74% (267 of 360), 69% (135 of 195), and 80% (132 of 165), respectively. Sensitivity for needles 25 mm or more in length was significantly (P < 0.0001) higher than that for needles of 11 to 24 mm or 10 mm or less, with respective values of 99% (69 of 70), 84% (46 of 55), and 29% (20 of 70). Readers demonstrated moderate interobserver agreement, with a multireader kappa value of 0.60. CONCLUSIONS: Abdominal radiographs have high sensitivity and interobserver agreement in the detection of retained surgical needles over 10 mm in length, but smaller needles are detected with significantly lower sensitivity and the utility of plain abdominal radiographs in this setting is more debatable.

Exporting excellence for Whipple resection to refine the Leapfrog Initiative.

BACKGROUND: The Leapfrog Group is a consortium of Fortune 500 corporations and healthcare purchasers whose intent is to harness their purchasing power to improve the quality of care by regionalizing high complexity operations at high volume hospitals (HVH). The Whipple resection has been designated a "Leapfrog" procedure and the recommendation issued that it be performed at HVH. However, alternatives to the Leapfrog Initiative are likely necessary because regionalization has been difficult to implement, as the number of Leapfrog sites is low in rural areas, and the initiative's relevance to facilities that care for the uninsured is unclear. We hypothesized that defining exportable elements of the Whipple resection could allow a low volume hospital (LVH) to improve upon its processes of care to safely attempt these procedures. STUDY DESIGN: We describe the surgical experience of the University of California, San Francisco at the San Mateo Medical Center (SMMC) from 2002 to 2004. A quality improvement program was introduced at this LVH, focusing on enhancing structure and processes of care. High-volume UCSF pancreas surgeons were polled to define exportable elements of Whipple resection. A senior pancreas consultant assisted in the perioperative preparation of SMMC. RESULTS: Of the nine patients who underwent exploratory surgery for an intended Whipple resection, four had a successful resection, and five were unresectable. Morbidity was minimal and 30-d mortality was zero. CONCLUSIONS: Whipple resections can be safely performed at a LVH after exporting surgical excellence. The structure and process changes allowed the LVH to improve its quality of care. Alternatives to the Leapfrog Initiative are feasible and can extend its original intent.