Search

Background: The utilization of robot-assisted approaches to surgery has increased significantly over the last two decades. This has introduced novel complexities into the operating room environment, requiring management of new challenges and workflow adaptation. This study aimed to analyze challenges in the surgical setup for complex upper gastrointestinal robot-assisted surgery (UGI-RAS) and identify opportunities for solutions. Methods: Direct observations of surgical setup processes for UGI-RAS were performed by a trained Human Factors researcher at a non-profit academic medical center in Southern California. Setup tasks were subdivided into five phases: (1) before wheels-in; (2) patient transfer and anesthesia induction; (3) patient preparation; (4) surgery preparation; and (5) robot docking. Start/end times for each phase/task were documented along with workflow disruption (FD) narratives and timestamps. Setup tasks and FDs were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: Twenty UGI-RAS setup procedures were observed between May-November 2023: sleeve gastrectomy +/- hiatal hernia repair (n = 9, 45.00%); para-esophageal hernia repair +/- fundoplication (n = 8, 40.00%); revision to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (n = 2, 10.00%); and gastric band removal (n = 1, 5.00%). Frequent FDs included planning breakdowns (n = 20, 29.85%), equipment/supply management (n = 17, 25.37%), patient care coordination (n = 8, 11.94%), and equipment challenges (n = 8, 11.94%). Eleven of 20 observations were first-start cases, of which 10 experienced delayed starts. Discussion: Interventions aimed at improving workflows during UGI-RAS setup include performing pre-operative team huddles and conducting trainings aimed at team coordination and equipment challenges. These solutions could result in improved teamwork, efficiency, and communication while reducing case start delays and turnover time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundThe integration of high technology into health care systems is intended to provide new treatment options and improve the quality, safety, and efficiency of care. Robotic-assisted surgery is an example of high technology integration in health care, which has become ubiquitous in many surgical disciplines. ObjectiveThis study aims to understand and measure current robotic-assisted surgery processes in a systematic, quantitative, and replicable manner to identify latent systemic threats and opportunities for improvement based on our observations and to implement and evaluate interventions. This 5-year study will follow a human factors engineering approach to improve the safety and efficiency of robotic-assisted surgery across 4 US hospitals. MethodsThe study uses a stepped wedge crossover design with 3 interventions, introduced in different sequences at each of the hospitals over four 8-month phases. Robotic-assisted surgery procedures will be observed in the following specialties: urogynecology, gynecology, urology, bariatrics, general, and colorectal. We will use the data collected from observations, surveys, and interviews to inform interventions focused on teamwork, task design, and workplace design. We intend to evaluate attitudes toward each intervention, safety culture, subjective workload for each case, effectiveness of each intervention (including through direct observation of a sample of surgeries in each observational phase), operating room duration, length of stay, and patient safety incident reports. Analytic methods will include statistical data analysis, point process analysis, and thematic content analysis. ResultsThe study was funded in September 2018 and approved by the institutional review board of each institution in May and June of 2019 (CSMC and MDRH: Pro00056245; VCMC: STUDY 270; MUSC: Pro00088741). After refining the 3 interventions in phase 1, data collection for phase 2 (baseline data) began in November 2019 and was scheduled to continue through June 2020. However, data collection was suspended in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We collected a total of 65 observations across the 4 sites before the pandemic. Data collection for phase 2 was resumed in October 2020 at 2 of the 4 sites. ConclusionsThis will be the largest direct observational study of surgery ever conducted with data collected on 680 robotic surgery procedures at 4 different institutions. The proposed interventions will be evaluated using individual-level (workload and attitude), process-level (perioperative duration and flow disruption), and organizational-level (safety culture and complications) measures. An implementation science framework is also used to investigate the causes of success or failure of each intervention at each site and understand the potential spread of the interventions. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/25284

Background: Despite substantial efforts to reduce operating room (OR) turnover time (TOT), delays remain a frustration to physicians, staff, and hospital leadership. These efforts have employed many systems and human factor‐based approaches with variable results. A deeper dive into methodologies and their applicability could lead to successful and sustained change. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review to evaluate relevant research focused on improving OR TOT and clearly defining measures of successful intervention. Material and Methods: A systematic review of OR TOT interventions implemented between 1980 through October 2022 was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) methodology. Research databases included: 1) PubMed; 2) Web of Science; and 3) OVID Medline. Results: A total of 38 articles were appropriate for analysis. Most employed a pre/post intervention approach (29, 76.3%), the remaining utilized a control/intervention approach. Nine intervention methods were identified: the majority included a process redesign bundle (24, 63%), followed by overlapping induction, dedicated unit/team/space feedback, financial incentives, team training, education, practice guidelines, and redefinition of roles/responsibilities. Studies were further categorized into one of two groups: (1) those that utilized predetermined interventions based on anecdotal experience or prior literature (18, 47.4%) and (2) those that conducted a prospective analysis on baseline data to inform intervention development (20, 52.6%). Discussion: There are significant variability in the methodologies utilized to improve OR TOT; however, the most effective solutions involved process redesign bundles developed from a prospective investigation of the clinical work‐system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]