Abstract
Purpose of Review
Surgical flow disruptions (SFD) are deviations from the progression of a procedure which can be potentially compromising to the safety of the patient. Investigators have previously demonstrated that SFDs can increase the likelihood of error. To date, there has been no investigation into flow disruptions through the eyes of clinicians in the operating room. This study, therefore, attempted to better understand SFDs and their impact from the perspective of operating room team members.
Recent Findings
After Institutional Review Board approval, a survey was sent to operating room team members including surgeons, anesthesia providers, nurses, and surgical technologists. The survey was developed to assess the perceived frequency and consequences of SFDs, and the ability to report and perceive the efficacy of reporting to management. Among 111 survey participants, 65% reported that surgical flow disruptions happen either “several times a day” or “every procedure.” Forty percent ranked poor communication as the most frequent cause of SFDs. Ten percent reported equipment failure was the most frequent cause of SFDs. Respondents who identified as attending surgeons felt impacts on patient safety and staff burnout was the most likely consequence of SFDs. Scrub technicians and nurses felt that economic consequences were the most likely result. Forty-four percent did not feel reporting led to effective change. Thirty-five percent did not believe they could report issues without adverse consequences.
Summary
Flow disruptions represent patterns or accumulations of disruptions which may highlight weak points in surgical systems and potential causes of staff burnout and medical error. The data in the present investigation demonstrate that OR team members recognize surgical flow disruptions are an important issue and believe poor communication and equipment problems are a significant factor. Our data additionally suggest the groups surveyed do not feel safe or productive in reporting flow disruptions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •• Of major importance
•• Csikszentmihalyi M. Flow: the psychology of optimal performance. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004Excellent manuscript on the psychology of optimal performance.
Csikszentmihalyi M. Happiness, flow, and economic equality. Am Psychol. 2000;55:1163–4. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.10.1163.
Fortney L, Luchterhand C, Zakletskaia L, Zgierska A, Rakel D. Abbreviated mindfulness intervention for job satisfaction, quality of life, and compassion in primary care clinicians: a pilot study. Ann Fam Med. 2013;11:412–20. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1511.
Healey AN, Primus CP, Koutantji M. Quantifying distraction and interruption in urological surgery. Qual Saf Health Care. 2007;16:135–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2006.019711.
•• Wiegmann DA, ElBardissi AW, Dearani JA, Daly RC, Sundt TM. Disruptions in surgical flow and their relationship to surgical errors: an exploratory investigation. Surgery. 2007;142:658–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2007.07.034Excellent investigation into disruptions in surgical flow and relationship to surgical errors.
Shouhed D, Blocker R, Gangi A, Ley E, Blaha J, Margulies D, et al. Flow disruptions during trauma care. World J Surg. 2014;38:314–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-013-2306-0.
ElBardissi AW, Wiegmann DA, Dearani JA, Daly RC, Sundt TM 3rd. Application of the human factors analysis and classification system methodology to the cardiovascular surgery operating room. Ann Thorac Surg. 2007;83:1412–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2006.11.002.
Healey AN, Sevdalis N, Vincent CA. Measuring intra-operative interference from distraction and interruption observed in the operating theatre. Ergonomics. 2006;49:589–604. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130600568899.
Sevdalis N, Healey AN, Vincent CA. Distracting communications in the operating theatre. J Eval Clin Pract. 2007;13:390–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00712.x.
Shouhed D, Gewertz B, Wiegmann D, Catchpole K. Integrating human factors research and surgery: a review. Arch Surg. 2012;147:1141–6. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2013.596.
Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Molla S. To err is human: summary. 1999;126. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095026880100509X.
Barach P. Reporting and preventing medical mishaps: lessons from non-medical near miss reporting systems. BMJ. 2000;320:759–63. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7237.759.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
David Silver, Alan Kaye, and Douglas Slakey declare no conflict of interest. Alan Kaye is a Section Editor for Current Headache and Pain Reports. He has not been involved in the editorial handling of this manuscript. Dr. Kaye is also a speaker for Merck.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This article is part of the Topical Collection on Other Pain
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Silver, D., Kaye, A.D. & Slakey, D. Surgical Flow Disruptions, a Pilot Survey with Significant Clinical Outcome Implications. Curr Pain Headache Rep 24, 60 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11916-020-00896-2
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11916-020-00896-2