STOP: Can We Minimize OR Traffic?

Perioperative nurses at our institution voiced concerns about the amount of traffic in the ORs. We formed a workgroup consisting of perioperative nurses, educators, and leaders and initiated a quality improvement (QI) project to identify the amount of OR traffic that occurs during a procedure. The workgroup developed a check sheet to record door swings, staff classifications, reasons for opening the door, and the number of people in the OR at 15-minute intervals. Baseline results showed that average door swings ranged from 33 per hour in general surgery to 54 per hour in cardiac surgery. Nurses accounted for the most traffic, citing retrieving supplies as the main reason. Interventions focused on decreasing nurse traffic for retrieval of supplies in general surgery. Follow-up observations showed that average door swings increased to 41 per hour in general surgery, but nurse traffic decreased. Monitoring and limiting traffic could positively affect patient safety and outcomes.

A multidisciplinary team approach to retained foreign objects.

BACKGROUND: Retained foreign objects (RFOs) after surgical procedures are an infrequent but potentially devastating medical error. The Mayo Clinic, Rochester (MCR), undertook a quality improvement program to reduce the incidence of surgical RFOs. METHOD: A multidisciplinary, multiphase approach was initiated in 2005. The effort, led by surgical, nursing, and administrative institutional leaders, was divided into three phases. The first phase included a defect analysis and policy review. A detailed analysis of all RFOs (both true and near misses) was undertaken to identify patterns of failures unique to our institution and operating room culture. Simultaneously, a review of all relevant institutional policies was performed, with comprehensive revisions focusing on increased clarity and inter- and intrapolicy consistency. The second phase involved increasing awareness and communication among all operating room personnel, including surgeons, residents, nursing, and allied health staff. The education program included all-staff conferences, team training, simulation videos, and daily education reminders and in-room audits. Finally, a monitoring and control phase involved rapid leadership response teams to any events, enhanced staff communication, and policy reviews. RESULTS: When the program started, MCR was averaging a surgical RFO every 16 days. After the intervention, the average interval between RFO events increased to 69 days, a level of performance that has been sustained for more than two years. DISCUSSION: MCR experienced a significant and sustained reduction in the incidents of RFOs, attributed to the multidisciplinary nature of the initiative, the active engagement of institutional leadership, and use of the principles of enhanced communication between operating room staff members to improve operating room situational awareness.

Incidence and characteristics of potential and actual retained foreign object events in surgical patients.

BACKGROUND: Incidence of retained foreign objects (RFOs) after operations is unknown, as many can go unrecognized for years. We reviewed the incidence and characteristics of surgical RFO events at a tertiary care institution during 4 years. STUDY DESIGN: All RFO events, near misses and actual, reported on an adverse event line during 2003 to 2006 were reviewed. RESULTS: During 2003 to 2006, there were 191,168 operations performed, with 68 reported events resulting in a potential RFO defect rate of 0.356/1,000 patients. After review, 34 patients had no RFOs (near misses) and 34 were actual RFOs, resulting in a true RFO defect rate of 0.178/1,000 operations or approximately 1:5,500 operations. In the near-miss patient, needles were miscounted 76% of the time. In the 34 actual RFO patients, items retained were 23 sponges (68%), 7 miscellaneous other items (20%), 3 needles (9%), and 1 instrument (3%). The 34 actual RFOs occurred in incidents where the count had been reported as correct in 21 patients (62%). In 18 patients where an RFO was eventually discovered, intraoperative imaging detected only 12 objects (67%). In operations involving a body cavity, our practice is to obtain a high-resolution x-ray survey film, in a dedicated x-ray suite, before entering the recovery room. Twenty RFOs were identified from survey films and all occurred in patients with correct counts. No RFOs occurred during emergency or high blood-loss procedures and none resulted in demonstrable clinical harm. Two patients left the hospital with an RFO. Twenty-two patients (64.8%) underwent reoperation, with 1 object not removed, 6 (17.6%) retrieved without operation, and 6 (17.6%) where the clinical decision was not to remove. CONCLUSIONS: RFOs at an institution that routinely performs postprocedure x-rays indicate that RFOs can occur more frequently than expected from the literature. The majority occur in patients with correct counts. Relying on counting as the primary mechanism to avoid RFOs is unreliable, and investigating new technologies designed to achieve reliable counts is warranted.