Prevalence and Characteristics of Interruptions and Distractions During Surgical Counts.

BACKGROUND: Surgical counting is a complex and safety-critical task that requires sustained attention by multiple members of the surgical team in order to prevent the occurrence of an unintentionally retained foreign object. Interruptions and distractions in the operating room are common and can negatively affect task performance. However, the prevalence and sources of interruptions and distractions during safety-critical tasks, such as surgical counting, have not previously been quantified. An understanding of the characteristics of these events could be used to inform targeted improvements to patient safety. METHODS: Observations were conducted of surgical procedures in order to quantify and describe interruptions and distractions during surgical counting activities. Analysis was separated into phases: the initial count, additions to the surgical field, removals from the surgical field, and closure counts. RESULTS: Thirty-six surgical procedures were observed. Interruptions occurred in 10.0% of initial counts, 15.4% of additions, 23.5% of removals, and 33.3% of closure counts observed. The source of 80.4% of interruptions was a surgeon, usually asking the scrub nurse for an item. Distractions were present in 46.7% of initial counts, 38.5% of additions, 41.2% of removals, and 40.9% of closure counts observed. Common sources of distraction included music, conversations, people entering and exiting the theater, and ringing phones. CONCLUSION: Interruptions and distractions are common during surgical counts and can significantly affect patient safety by jeopardizing the accuracy of the count. A number of suggestions are provided that could reduce interruptions and distractions and their consequences.

Evaluations for New Healthcare Environment Commissioning and Operational Decision Making Using Simulation and Human Factors: A Case Study of an Interventional Trauma Operating Room.

PURPOSE: The aim of this article is to provide a case study example of the preopening phase of an interventional trauma operating room (ITOR) using systems-focused simulation and human factor evaluations for healthcare environment commissioning. BACKGROUND: Systems-focused simulation, underpinned by human factors science, is increasingly being used as a quality improvement tool to test and evaluate healthcare spaces with the stakeholders that use them. Purposeful real-to-life simulated events are rehearsed to allow healthcare teams opportunity to identify what is working well and what needs improvement within the work system such as tasks, environments, and processes that support the delivery of healthcare services. This project highlights salient evaluation objectives and methods used within the clinical commissioning phase of one of the first ITORs in Canada. METHODS: A multistaged evaluation project to support clinical commissioning was facilitated engaging 24 stakeholder groups. Key evaluation objectives highlighted include the evaluation of two transport routes, switching of operating room (OR) tabletops, the use of the C-arm, and timely access to lead in the OR. Multiple evaluation methods were used including observation, debriefing, time-based metrics, distance wheel metrics, equipment adjustment counts, and other transport route considerations. RESULTS: The evaluation resulted in several types of data that allowed for informed decision making for the most effective, efficient, and safest transport route for an exsanguinating trauma patient and healthcare team; improved efficiencies in use of the C-arm, significantly reduced the time to access lead; and uncovered a new process for switching OR tabletop due to safety threats identified.

Community paramedic point of care testing: validity and usability of two commercially available devices.

BACKGROUND: Community Paramedics (CPs) require access to timely blood analysis in the field to guide treatment and transport decisions. Point of care testing (POCT), as opposed to laboratory analysis, may offer a solution, but limited research exists on CP POCT. The purpose of this study was to compare the validity of two devices (Abbott i-STAT® and Alere epoc®) by CPs in the community. METHODS: In a CP programme responding to 6000 annual patient care events, a split sample validation of POCT against traditional laboratory analysis for seven analytes (sodium, potassium, chloride, creatinine, hemoglobin, hematocrit, and glucose) was conducted on a consecutive sample of patients. The difference of proportion of discrepant results between POCT and laboratory was compared using a two sample proportion test. Usability was analysed by survey of CP experience, a linear mixed effects model of Systems Usability Scale (SUS) adjusted for CP clinical and POCT experience, an expert heuristic evaluation of devices, a review of device-logged errors, and coded observations of POCT use during quality control testing. RESULTS: Of 1649 episodes of care screened for enrollment, 174 required a blood draw, with 108 episodes (62.1%) enrolled from 73 participants. Participants had a mean age of 58.7 years (SD16.3); 49% were female. In 4 of 646 (0.6%) comparisons, POCT reported a critical value but the laboratory did not; with no statistically significant (p = 0.323) difference between i-STAT® (0.9%;95%CI:0.0,1.9%) compared with epoc® (0.3%;95%CI:0.0,0.9%). There were no instances of the laboratory reporting a critical value when POCT did not. In 88 of 1046 (8.4%) comparisons the a priori defined acceptable difference between POCT and the laboratory was exceeded; occurring more often in epoc® (10.7%;95%CI:8.1,13.3%) compared with i-STAT® (6.1%;95%CI:4.1,8.2%)(p = 0.007). Eighteen of 19 CP surveys were returned, with 11/18 (61.1%) preferring i-STAT® over epoc®. The i-STAT® had a higher mean SUS score (higher usability) compared with epoc® (84.0/100 vs. 59.6/100; p = 0.011). There were no statistically significant differences in device logged errors between i-STAT® and epoc® (p = 0.063). CONCLUSIONS: CP programmes can expect clinically valid results from POCT. Device usability assessments should be considered with any local implementation as the two POCT systems have different strengths.

The evolution of a purpose designed hybrid trauma operating room from the trauma service perspective: the RAPTOR (Resuscitation with Angiography Percutaneous Treatments and Operative Resuscitations).

Traumatic injury is the leading cause of potentially preventable lost years of life in the Western world and exsanguination is the most potentially preventable cause of post-traumatic death. With mature trauma systems and experienced trauma centres, extra-abdominal sites, such as the pelvis, constitute the most frequent anatomic site of exsanguination. Haemorrhage control for such bleeding often requires surgical adjuncts most notably interventional radiology (IR). With the usual paradigm of surgery conducted within an operating room and IR procedures within distant angiography suites, responsible clinicians are faced with making difficult decisions regarding where to transport the most physiologically unstable patients for haemorrhage control. If such a critical patient is transported to the wrong suite, they may die unnecessarily despite having potentially salvageable injuries. Thus, it seems only logical that the resuscitative operating room of the future would have IR capabilities making it the obvious geographic destination for critically unstable patients, especially those who are exsanguinating. Our trauma programme recently had the opportunity to conceive, design, build, and operationalise a purpose-designed hybrid trauma operating room, designated as the resuscitation with angiographic percutaneous techniques and operative resuscitation (RAPTOR) suite, which we believe to be the first such resource designed primarily to serve the exsanguinating trauma patient. The project was initiated after consultations between the trauma programme and private philanthropists regarding the greatest potential impacts on regional trauma care. The initial capital construction costs were thus privately generated but coincided with a new hospital wing construction allowing the RAPTOR to be purpose-designed for the exsanguinating patient. Many trauma programmes around the world are now starting to navigate the complex process of building new facilities, or else retrofitting existing ones, to address the need for single-site flexible haemorrhage control. This manuscript therefore describes the many considerations in the design and refinement of the physical build, equipment selection, human factors evaluation of new combined treatment paradigms, and the final introduction of a RAPTOR protocol in order that others may learn from our initial efforts.