Distractions in the operating room: a survey of the healthcare team.

BACKGROUND: Distractions during surgical procedures are associated with team inefficiency and medical error. Little is published about the healthcare provider's perception of distraction and its adverse impact in the operating room. We aim to explore the perception of the operating room team on multiple distractions during surgical procedures. METHODS: A 26-question survey was administered to surgeons, anesthesia team members, nurses, and scrub technicians at our institution. Respondents were asked to identify and rank multiple distractions and indicate how each distraction might affect the flow of surgery. RESULTS: There was 160 responders for a response rate of 19.18% (160/834), of which 71 (44.1%) male and 82 (50.9%) female, 48 (29.8%) surgeons, 59 (36.6%) anesthesiologists, Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNA), and 53 (32.9%) OR nurses and scrub technicians. Responders were classified into a junior group (< 10 years of experience) and a senior group (≥ 10 years). Auditory distraction followed by equipment were the most distracting factors in the operating room. All potential auditory distractions in this survey were associated with higher percentage of certain level of negative impact on the flow of surgery except for music. The top 5 distractors belonged to equipment and environment categories. Phone calls/ pagers/ beepers and case relevant communications were consistently among the top 5 most common distractors. Case relevant communications, music, teaching, and consultation were the top 4 most perceived positive impact on the flow of surgery. Distractors with higher levels of "bothersome" rating appeared to associate with a higher level of perceived negative impact on the flow of surgery. Vision was the least distracting factor and appeared to cause minimal positive impact on the flow of surgery. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first survey studying perception of surgery, anesthesia, and OR staff on various distractions in the operating room. Fewer unnecessary distractions might improve the flow of surgery, improve OR teamwork, and potentially improve patient outcomes.

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric band remains a safe, effective, and durable option for surgical weight loss.

BACKGROUND: Despite many patients doing well after laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) several studies caution offering this procedure for weight loss. The aim of our study was to review our long-term results over a decade. METHODS: Following IRB approval, the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) Data Registry was used to identify LAGB placement between 2007 and 2013 by a single surgeon. We sought to determine complications of initial operation, weight loss and resolution of comorbidities over time, the indications for reoperation including removal, revision or conversion to another weight loss surgery. Chi-square test was used to analysis. RESULTS: From 403 LAGB performed between January 2007 and December 2013, 75 patients required reoperation with total 79 procedures, including band revision and/or conversion. Mean follow-up time was 5.78 years (73.67 months). The rate of reoperation was at least 18.61%. There were 60 band removals, 10 band revisions, 9 conversions to either sleeve or gastric bypass. Only 16 patients (20.25%) required reoperation due to inadequate weight loss. Band slippage/prolapse remained the most common non weight-related indication for reoperation (23, 29.11%). Reoperation associated with longer length of stay compared to index procedures (2.12 days vs 1.63 days, p < 0.0001) but no statistical difference in 30_days_complication. Of those who did not require reoperation, BMI at 10th year follow-up was 37.50 from initial BMI of 42.23 with EWL of 39.22%. CONCLUSIONS: Lap band is effective for most patients with long-term durability. Over time approximately one fifth will need additional surgery. Only one fifth of reoperation relates to inadequate weight loss.