Using Flow Disruptions to Examine System Safety in Robotic-Assisted Surgery: Protocol for a Stepped Wedge Crossover Design.
crossover design
ergonomics
patient safety
robotic surgical procedures
Journal
JMIR research protocols
ISSN: 1929-0748
Titre abrégé: JMIR Res Protoc
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101599504
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Feb 2021
09 Feb 2021
Historique:
received:
26
10
2020
accepted:
23
12
2020
revised:
20
12
2020
entrez:
9
2
2021
pubmed:
10
2
2021
medline:
10
2
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The 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. This 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. The 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. The 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. This 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. DERR1-10.2196/25284.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The 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.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
This 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.
METHODS
METHODS
The 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.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The 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.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This 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)
UNASSIGNED
DERR1-10.2196/25284.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33560239
pii: v10i2e25284
doi: 10.2196/25284
pmc: PMC7902184
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e25284Informations de copyright
©Myrtede C Alfred, Tara N Cohen, Kate A Cohen, Falisha F Kanji, Eunice Choi, John Del Gaizo, Lynne S Nemeth, Alexander V Alekseyenko, Daniel Shouhed, Stephen J Savage, Jennifer T Anger, Ken Catchpole. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (http://www.researchprotocols.org), 09.02.2021.
Références
Ergonomics. 2013;56(11):1669-86
pubmed: 24088063
BMJ Qual Saf. 2017 Dec;26(12):1015-1021
pubmed: 28971880
Ann Thorac Surg. 2001 Jul;72(1):300-5
pubmed: 11465216
BMJ Qual Saf. 2016 Jul;25(7):485-8
pubmed: 26912578
Surgery. 2007 Nov;142(5):658-65
pubmed: 17981185
Implement Sci. 2009 Aug 07;4:50
pubmed: 19664226
Ergonomics. 2013;56(2):205-19
pubmed: 23384283
Ann Intern Med. 2002 Sep 3;137(5 Part 1):327-33
pubmed: 12204016
Ergonomics. 2006 Apr 15-May 15;49(5-6):567-88
pubmed: 16717010
F1000Res. 2018 Dec 18;7:
pubmed: 30613380
BMJ Qual Saf. 2015 Feb;24(2):120-7
pubmed: 25368320
J Adv Nurs. 2008 Apr;62(1):107-15
pubmed: 18352969
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
Qual Saf Health Care. 2009 Apr;18(2):104-8
pubmed: 19342523
World J Surg. 2011 Sep;35(9):1961-9
pubmed: 21597890
Qual Saf Health Care. 2006 Dec;15 Suppl 1:i50-8
pubmed: 17142610
BMJ. 2010 Nov 02;341:c5469
pubmed: 21045024
Surg Endosc. 2001 Feb;15(2):161-5
pubmed: 11285960
J Healthc Qual. 2015 Sep-Oct;37(5):277-86
pubmed: 24112283
Ergonomics. 2018 Jan;61(1):26-39
pubmed: 28271956
Hum Factors. 2004 Spring;46(1):50-80
pubmed: 15151155
J Am Coll Surg. 2007 Apr;204(4):533-40
pubmed: 17382211
Ann Surg. 2017 Jan;265(1):90-96
pubmed: 28009731
World J Urol. 2013 Jun;31(3):455-61
pubmed: 23274528
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000 Apr;119(4 Pt 1):661-72
pubmed: 10733754
AORN J. 2007 Jul;86(1):18-22
pubmed: 17621444
Arch Surg. 2008 Jan;143(1):12-7; discussion 18
pubmed: 18209148
Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Jan;123(1):5-12
pubmed: 24463657
Surgery. 2006 Jul;140(1):25-33
pubmed: 16857439
Paediatr Anaesth. 2007 May;17(5):470-8
pubmed: 17474955
Can J Urol. 2009 Aug;16(4):4742-9; discussion 4749
pubmed: 19671227
Qual Saf Health Care. 2009 Apr;18(2):109-15
pubmed: 19342524
Pediatr Rev. 2012 Aug;33(8):353-9; quiz 359-60
pubmed: 22855927
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Jan 26;17(1):88
pubmed: 28126032
Ann Emerg Med. 2013 Feb;61(2):155-60
pubmed: 22560466
J Am Coll Surg. 2012 Jul;215(1):107-14; discussion 114-6
pubmed: 22560318
J Healthc Risk Manag. 2013;32(3):5-10
pubmed: 23335296
Surg Endosc. 2016 Sep;30(9):3749-61
pubmed: 26675938
BMJ. 2000 Mar 18;320(7237):745-9
pubmed: 10720356
AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2015 Nov 05;2015:1057-66
pubmed: 26958244
BMJ Qual Saf. 2016 Jul;25(7):480-4
pubmed: 26685148
Ann Fam Med. 2004 Jul-Aug;2(4):317-26
pubmed: 15335130
Curr Opin Urol. 2010 Jul;20(4):280-4
pubmed: 21475070
BMJ Open. 2012 Dec 18;2(6):
pubmed: 23253870
J Patient Saf. 2010 Sep;6(3):180-6
pubmed: 20802280
Manag Care. 2014 May;23(5):26-9, 33-5
pubmed: 25016847
Hum Factors. 1996 Dec;38(4):593-613
pubmed: 8976623