Implications of equipment failure occurring during surgery.
Cardiac equipment malfunction
Instrument accountability
Instrument maintenance
Quality control
Risk management
Journal
Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England
ISSN: 1478-7083
Titre abrégé: Ann R Coll Surg Engl
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7506860
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2022
Nov 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
22
4
2022
medline:
3
11
2022
entrez:
21
4
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Few formal studies have been performed investigating the frequency of equipment failure during surgery. Surgeons are unable to operate without the plethora of instruments and equipment surrounding them in the operating theatre. As with any mechanical component, instruments and equipment are subject to time- and use-dependent degradation in their performance. Yet no formal requirements exist for the routine inspection or maintenance of instruments. Owing to this lack of information regarding equipment failure we undertook the first investigation of intraoperative equipment malfunction occurring during cardiac surgical procedures. Over a 12-month period cardiac surgeons were required to report equipment malfunction during each procedure. Operating theatre equipment was divided into three categories broadly based on equipment portability and function: group 1, theatre infrastructure and components; group 2, large medical equipment; and group 3, surgical instruments. In a highly significant proportion of operations performed (92%) there was an issue with equipment. The most common issues occurred in group 3 with fine surgical instrument malfunctions; most commonly worn-out needle holders and blunt scissors. Theatre infrastructure and large medical equipment failures (groups 1 and 2) resulted in the cancellation of four cases. Some intraoperative instrument failures were potentially catastrophic. The incidence of equipment failure during cardiac surgery is unacceptably high. In some instances, cases were cancelled and revenue lost owing to equipment malfunction. A balance between the safety and quality of equipment and cost effectiveness is required. These findings suggest that surgical instruments warrant an annual compulsory inspection.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35446701
doi: 10.1308/rcsann.2021.0345
pmc: PMC9685966
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
678-684Références
Ergonomics. 2006 Apr 15-May 15;49(5-6):589-604
pubmed: 16717011
J Am Coll Surg. 2009 Jun;208(6):1115-23
pubmed: 19476900
Urology. 2019 Sep;131:125-129
pubmed: 31158353
Med Educ. 2004 Jul;38(7):691-9
pubmed: 15200393
World J Surg. 2018 Jun;42(6):1597-1602
pubmed: 29147893
Ann Surg. 2004 Apr;239(4):475-82
pubmed: 15024308
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2009 Jan-Feb;16(1):28-33
pubmed: 19004670
BMJ Qual Saf. 2013 Sep;22(9):710-8
pubmed: 23886892
Circulation. 2013 Sep 3;128(10):1139-69
pubmed: 23918255
Qual Saf Health Care. 2010 Dec;19(6):e64
pubmed: 20554572
Cir Cir. 2020;88(4):489-499
pubmed: 32567596
Ergonomics. 2006 Apr 15-May 15;49(5-6):567-88
pubmed: 16717010
Surg Endosc. 2010 Aug;24(8):1990-5
pubmed: 20135171
Surg Endosc. 2002 Jun;16(6):1005-14; discussion 1015
pubmed: 12000985
BMJ Qual Saf. 2014 Apr;23(4):299-318
pubmed: 23922403
Heart. 2010 Sep;96(18):1441-3
pubmed: 20511631
JAMA. 2004 Jan 21;291(3):325-34
pubmed: 14734595
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2011 Jun;41(6):795-802
pubmed: 21320788
Surg Endosc. 2017 Oct;31(10):4093-4101
pubmed: 28281117