Environmental sustainability and gynaecological surgery: Which factors influence behaviour? An interview study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the various factors that influence environmentally sustainable behaviour in gynaecological surgery and examine the differences between gynaecologists and residents. DESIGN: An interview study. SETTING: Academic and non-academic hospitals in the Netherlands. POPULATION: Gynaecologists (n = 10) and residents (n = 6). METHODS: Thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews to determine the various factors that influence environmentally sustainable behaviour in gynaecological surgery and to examine the differences between gynaecologists and residents. By using the Desmond framework and the COM-B BCW, both organisational and individual factors related to behaviour were considered. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Factors that influence environmentally sustainable behaviour. RESULTS: Awareness is increasing but practical knowledge is insufficient. It is crucial to integrate education on the environmental impact of everyday decisions for residents and gynaecologists. Gynaecologists make their own choices but residents' autonomy is limited. There is the necessity to provide environmentally sustainable surgical equipment without compromising other standards. There is a need for a societal change that encourages safe and open communication about environmental sustainability. To transition to environmentally sustainable practices, leadership, time, collaboration with the industry and supportive regulatory changes are essential. CONCLUSION: This study lays the groundwork for promoting more environmentally sustainable behaviour in gynaecological surgery. The key recommendations, addressing hospital regulations, leadership, policy revisions, collaboration with the industry, guideline development and education, offer practical steps towards a more sustainable healthcare system. Encouraging environmentally sustainable practices should be embraced to enhance the well-being of both our planet and our population, driving us closer to a more environmentally sustainable future in healthcare.

EXPLORING MEDICAL DEVICES: THE USE OF RISK ASSESSMENT TOOLS AND THEIR LINK WITH TRAINING IN HOSPITALS.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to explore the risk assessment tools and criteria used to assess the risk of medical devices in hospitals, and to explore the link between the risk of a medical device and how those risks impact or alter the training of staff. METHODS: Within a broader questionnaire on implementation of a national guideline, we collected quantitative data regarding the types of risk assessment tools used in hospitals and the training of healthcare staff. RESULTS: The response rate for the questionnaire was 81 percent; a total of sixty-five of eighty Dutch hospitals. All hospitals use a risk assessment tool and the biggest cluster (40 percent) use a tool developed internally. The criteria used to assess risk most often are: the function of the device (92 percent), the severity of adverse events (88 percent) and the frequency of use (77 percent). Forty-seven of fifty-six hospitals (84 percent) base their training on the risk associated with a medical device. For medium- and high-risk devices, the main method is practical training. As risk increases, the amount and type of training and examination increases. CONCLUSIONS: Dutch hospitals use a wide range of tools to assess the risk of medical devices. These tools are often based on the same criteria: the function of the device, the potential severity of adverse events, and the frequency of use. Furthermore, these tools are used to determine the amount and type of training required for staff. If the risk of a device is higher, then the training and examination is more extensive.

The Incidence and Nature of Adverse Medical Device Events in Dutch Hospitals: A Retrospective Patient Record Review Study.

OBJECTIVES: Despite widespread use of medical devices and their increasing complexity, their contribution to unintended injury caused by healthcare (adverse events, AEs) remains relatively understudied. The aim of this study was to gain insight in the incidence and types of AEs involving medical devices (AMDEs). METHODS: Data from two patient record studies for the identification of AEs were used. Identification of AMDEs was part of these studies. Patient records of 6894 admissions of a random sample of 20 hospitals in 2011/2012 and 19 hospitals in 2015/2016 were reviewed for AMDEs by trained nurses and physicians. RESULTS: In 98.7% of the admissions, a medical device was used. Adverse events involving medical devices were present in 2.8% of the admissions, with 24% of the AMDEs being potentially preventable. Of all AEs, in 40%, medical devices were involved. Of all potentially preventable AEs, in 44%, medical devices were involved. Implants were most often involved in potentially preventable AMDEs. CONCLUSIONS: Medical devices are substantially involved in potentially preventable AEs in hospitals. Research into AMDEs is of great importance because of the increasing use and complexity of medical devices. Based on patient records, most improvements could be made for placement of implants and prevention of infections related to medical devices. Safety and safe use of medical devices should be a subject of attention and further research.

Proficient until proven unproficient? Exploring attitudes and perceptions of medical specialists on proficiency, proficiency requirements and proficiency tests for electrosurgery.

BACKGROUND: The correct and safe use of electrosurgery requires medical specialists to be proficient. Minimum proficiency requirements and proficiency tests are a manner to structurally assure proficiency. The objective of this study is to explore attitudes and perceptions of medical specialists on proficiency, proficiency requirements and proficiency tests for the safe use of electrosurgery. METHODS: A qualitative study among medical specialists using semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: The participants recognized that the use of electrosurgery poses risks to the safety of patients and perioperative staff. According to some participants, increased awareness on the risks of electrosurgery is required. Most medical specialists however thought that proficiency of users of electrosurgery is sufficiently assured. Medical specialists stated to support proficiency requirements when they are endorsed by their scientific association. Proficiency tests encountered much resistance. Medical specialists argued that electrosurgery should not be tested as a single device but should be embedded in a larger entity, for example in a broader course or proficiency test. CONCLUSIONS: When assuring proficiency of users of electrosurgery, the positive attitude towards proficiency requirements and the more negative attitude towards proficiency tests should be taken into account.

Improving the Competency of Nurses.

To decrease infusion pump administration errors, time-consuming training is often initiated. The aims of this study were twofold: to develop minimum competency requirements for programming and operation of infusion pumps and to develop and validate a test for nurses based on those requirements. The test was completed by 226 nurses between May and December 2017. This study demonstrates that testing is a promising method to assess the competency of nurses in using medical devices. Moreover, test acceptability among nurses is high. Using competency requirements to develop a test offers the potential to tailor training needs and reduce training time.

The value of a 1-day multidisciplinary robot surgery training for novice robot surgeons.

INTRODUCTION: To fulfil the need for a basic level of competence in robotic surgery (Brinkman et al., Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 31(1):281-287, 2017; Dutch Health inspectorate (Inspectie voor de gezondheidszorg), Insufficient carefulness at the introduction of surgical robots (in Dutch: Onvoldoende zorgvuldigheid bij introductie van operatierobots), Igz, Utrecht, 2010), the NIVEL (Netherlands Institute for Healthcare Research) developed the 'Basic proficiency requirements for the safe use of robotic surgery' (BPR). Based on the BPR a 1-day robotic surgery training was organised to answer the following research questions: (1) Are novice robot surgeons able to accurately self-assess their knowledge and dexterity skills? (2) Is it possible to include the teaching of all BPRs in a 1-day training? MATERIALS AND METHODS: Based on the BPR, a robot surgery course was developed for residents and specialists (surgery, gynaecology and urology). In preparation, the participants completed an online e-module. The 1-day training consisted of a practical part on robot set-up, a theoretical section, and hands-on exercises on virtual reality robot simulators. Multiple online questionnaire was filled out by the participants at the end of the training to evaluate the perceived educational value of the course and to self-assess the degree to which BPRs were reached. RESULTS: 20 participants completed the training during the conference of the Dutch Association for Endoscopic Surgery (NVEC) in 2017. Participants indicated nearly all competency requirements were mastered at the end of the training. The competency requirements not mastered were, however, critical requirements for the safe use of the surgical robot. Skill simulation results show a majority of participants are unable to reach a proficient simulation score in basic skill simulation exercises. CONCLUSION: Results show novice robot surgeons are too positive in the self-assessment of their own dexterity skills after a 1-day training. Self-assessment revealed uncertainty of the obtained knowledge level on requirements for the safe use of the surgical robot. Basic courses on robotic training should inform trainees about their results to enhance learning and inform them of their competence levels.