Search

Introduction: To minimise the risks associated with ionising radiation, it is necessary for all staff involved to employ specific techniques to reduce radiation exposure of the patient. These techniques include using compression during examinations of the pelvic region and lumbar spine, using a gonad shield, and asking women if they are pregnant. However, some staff do not use these techniques consistently. Increasing compliance requires determining why staff are non‐compliant. Thus, this study aims to qualitatively investigate why radiographers do not use these techniques. Methods: This qualitative study is based on a cross‐sectional electronic survey with open‐ended questions. The data were analysed using an inductive qualitative content analysis with quantification of the findings. In total, 111 radiographers from 20 hospitals in Sweden participated. Results: Three categories appear related to barriers that could obstruct the radiographer from using compression, gonad shields and asking about pregnancy: patient characteristics, interaction between the patient and the radiographer and issues related to the situation and examination. Conclusions: The barriers to not using radiation protection measures varied depending on the specific measure. However, the barriers were mainly related to the patient experiencing pain, communication difficulties and cultural reasons. In addition, the lack of adequate and user‐friendly equipment was seen as a barrier to applying compression and using gonad shielding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims and objectives: The overall aim of the study was to illuminate the patients' lived experiences of waiting for and undergoing an endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) in a hybrid operating room (OR). Background: The hybrid OR is an example of the technological advancements within hospitals. The environmental impact on humans is well recognised but is rarely taken into account when hospitals are designed or rebuilt. The patient's experience of a hybrid OR is not earlier described. Design: A qualitative design based on hermeneutic phenomenology was implemented. Methods: Interviews were conducted with 18 patients. A thematic interpretation based on van Manen's approach was then used to analyse the findings. The consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative studies (COREQ) were used (Data S1). Results: The following three themes emerged from the interviews: (a) being scheduled for surgery induced both anxiety and hopefulness; (b) feeling watched over and surrendering to others in the technology intense environment and (c) feeling relief but unexpected exhaustion after surgery. In the discussion, the results were additionally reflected upon out from the four lifeworld existentials: lived body, lived space, lived time and lived others. Conclusions: The hybrid OR technology did not frighten the patients, but it was also not an environment that promoted or was conductive to having a dialogue with the staff. The disease and surgery brought feelings of anxiety, which was largely associated with the uncertainty of the situation. We suggest that continuity in contact with staff and patient‐centred information could be solutions to further calm the patients. Relevance to clinical practice: The hybrid OR environment itself did not seem to frighten the patient, but the way the high‐tech environment increased the distance between the patient and the multiple staff members needs further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: A hybrid operating room (OR) is a surgical OR with integrated imaging equipment and the possibility to serve both open surgery and image-guided interventions. Aim: This study aimed to investigate the work processes and types of collaboration in a hybrid OR during endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). Methods: Data consisted of video recordings from nine procedures, with a total recording time of 48 hrs 39 mins. The procedures were divided into four episodes (Acts). A qualitative cross-case analysis was conducted, resulting in a typical case. The type of collaboration during specific tasks was discussed and determined based on Thylefors´ team typology. Results: An extensive amount of safety activities occurred in the preparation phase (Acts 1 and 2), involving a number of staff categories. After the skin incision (Act 3), the main activities were performed by fewer staff categories, while some persons had a standby position and there were persons who were not at all involved in the procedure. Discussion: The different specialist staff in the hybrid OR worked through different types of collaboration: multi-, inter- and transprofessional. The level of needed collaboration depended on the activity performed, but it was largely multiprofessional and took place largely in separate groups of specialties: anesthesiology, surgery and radiology. Waiting time and overlapping tasks indicate that the procedures could be more efficient and safe for the patient. Conclusion: This study highlights that the three expertise specialties were required for safe treatment in the hybrid OR, but the extent of interprofessional activities was limited. Our results provide a basis for the development of more effective procedures with closer and more efficient interprofessional collaboration and reduction of overlapping roles. Considerable waiting times, traffic flow and presence of people who were not involved in the patient care are areas of further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]