Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 7/2018

Open Access 01-07-2018

Measuring surgical safety during minimally invasive surgical procedures: a validation study

Authors: Mathijs D. Blikkendaal, Sara R. C. Driessen, Sharon P. Rodrigues, Johann P. T. Rhemrev, Maddy J. G. H. Smeets, Jenny Dankelman, John J. van den Dobbelsteen, Frank Willem Jansen

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 7/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

During the implementation of new interventions (i.e., surgical devices and technologies) in the operating room, surgical safety might be compromised. Current safety measures are insufficient in detecting safety hazards during this process. The aim of the study was to observe whether surgical teams are capable of measuring surgical safety, especially with regard to the introduction of new interventions.

Methods

A Surgical Safety Questionnaire was developed that had to be filled out directly postoperative by three surgical team members. A potential safety concern was defined as at least one answer between (strongly) disagree and indifferent. The validity of the questionnaire was assessed by comparison with the results from video analysis. Two different observers annotated the presence and effect of surgical flow disturbances during 40 laparoscopic hysterectomies performed between November 2010 and April 2012.

Results

The surgeon reported a potential safety concern in 16% (85/520 questions). With respect to the scrub nurse and anesthesiologist, this was both 9% (46/520). With respect to the preparation, functioning, and ease of use of the devices in 37.5–47.5% (15–19/40 procedures) a potential safety concern was reported by one or more team members. During procedures after which a potential safety concern was reported, surgical flow disturbances lasted a higher percentage of the procedure duration [9.3 ± 6.2 vs. 2.9 ± 3.7% (mean ± SD), p < .001]. After procedures during which a new instrument or device was used, more potential safety concerns were reported (51.2 vs. 23.1%, p < .001).

Conclusions

Potential safety concerns were especially reported during procedures in which a relatively high percentage of the duration consisted of surgical flow disturbances and during procedures in which a new instrument or device was used. The Surgical Safety Questionnaire can act as a validated tool to evaluate and maintain surgical safety during minimally invasive procedures, especially during the introduction of a new intervention.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
go back to reference Sevdalis N, Hull L, Birnbach DJ (2012) Improving patient safety in the operating theatre and perioperative care: obstacles, interventions, and priorities for accelerating progress. Br J Anaesth 109(Suppl 1):i3–i16 Sevdalis N, Hull L, Birnbach DJ (2012) Improving patient safety in the operating theatre and perioperative care: obstacles, interventions, and priorities for accelerating progress. Br J Anaesth 109(Suppl 1):i3–i16
3.
go back to reference Blikkendaal MD, Driessen SR, Rodrigues SP, Rhemrev JP, Smeets MJ, Dankelman J, van den Dobbelsteen JJ, Jansen FW (2017) Surgical flow disturbances in dedicated minimally invasive surgery suites: an observational study to assess its supposed superiority over conventional suites. Surg Endosc 31:288–298CrossRefPubMed Blikkendaal MD, Driessen SR, Rodrigues SP, Rhemrev JP, Smeets MJ, Dankelman J, van den Dobbelsteen JJ, Jansen FW (2017) Surgical flow disturbances in dedicated minimally invasive surgery suites: an observational study to assess its supposed superiority over conventional suites. Surg Endosc 31:288–298CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Antoniadis S, Passauer-Baierl S, Baschnegger H, Weigl M (2014) Identification and interference of intraoperative distractions and interruptions in operating rooms. J Surg Res 188:21–29CrossRefPubMed Antoniadis S, Passauer-Baierl S, Baschnegger H, Weigl M (2014) Identification and interference of intraoperative distractions and interruptions in operating rooms. J Surg Res 188:21–29CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Bonrath EM, Dedy NJ, Zevin B, Grantcharov TP (2013) Defining technical errors in laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 27:2678–2691CrossRefPubMed Bonrath EM, Dedy NJ, Zevin B, Grantcharov TP (2013) Defining technical errors in laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 27:2678–2691CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Rodrigues SP, Wever AM, Dankelman J, Jansen FW (2012) Risk factors in patient safety: minimally invasive surgery versus conventional surgery. Surg Endosc 26:350–356CrossRefPubMed Rodrigues SP, Wever AM, Dankelman J, Jansen FW (2012) Risk factors in patient safety: minimally invasive surgery versus conventional surgery. Surg Endosc 26:350–356CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Driessen SRC, Sandberg EM, Rodrigues SP, van Zwet EW, Jansen FW (2017) Identification of risk factors in minimally invasive surgery: a prospective multicenter study. Surg Endosc 31:2467–2473CrossRefPubMed Driessen SRC, Sandberg EM, Rodrigues SP, van Zwet EW, Jansen FW (2017) Identification of risk factors in minimally invasive surgery: a prospective multicenter study. Surg Endosc 31:2467–2473CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Weerakkody RA, Cheshire NJ, Riga C, Lear R, Hamady MS, Moorthy K, Darzi AW, Vincent C, Bicknell CD (2013) Surgical technology and operating-room safety failures: a systematic review of quantitative studies. BMJ Qual Saf 22:710–718CrossRefPubMed Weerakkody RA, Cheshire NJ, Riga C, Lear R, Hamady MS, Moorthy K, Darzi AW, Vincent C, Bicknell CD (2013) Surgical technology and operating-room safety failures: a systematic review of quantitative studies. BMJ Qual Saf 22:710–718CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Persoon MC, Broos HJ, Witjes JA, Hendrikx AJ, Scherpbier AJ (2011) The effect of distractions in the operating room during endourological procedures. Surg Endosc 25:437–443CrossRefPubMed Persoon MC, Broos HJ, Witjes JA, Hendrikx AJ, Scherpbier AJ (2011) The effect of distractions in the operating room during endourological procedures. Surg Endosc 25:437–443CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Parker SE, Laviana AA, Wadhera RK, Wiegmann DA, Sundt TM III (2010) Development and evaluation of an observational tool for assessing surgical flow disruptions and their impact on surgical performance. World J Surg 34:353–361CrossRefPubMed Parker SE, Laviana AA, Wadhera RK, Wiegmann DA, Sundt TM III (2010) Development and evaluation of an observational tool for assessing surgical flow disruptions and their impact on surgical performance. World J Surg 34:353–361CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Pronovost PJ, Thompson DA, Holzmueller CG, Lubomski LH, Morlock LL (2005) Defining and measuring patient safety. Crit Care Clin 21:1–19CrossRefPubMed Pronovost PJ, Thompson DA, Holzmueller CG, Lubomski LH, Morlock LL (2005) Defining and measuring patient safety. Crit Care Clin 21:1–19CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Reason J (2004) Beyond the organisational accident: the need for “error wisdom” on the frontline. Qual Saf Health Care 13(Suppl 2):ii28–ii33 Reason J (2004) Beyond the organisational accident: the need for “error wisdom” on the frontline. Qual Saf Health Care 13(Suppl 2):ii28–ii33
13.
go back to reference Wiegmann DA, ElBardissi AW, Dearani JA, Daly RC, Sundt TM III (2007) Disruptions in surgical flow and their relationship to surgical errors: an exploratory investigation. Surgery 142:658–665CrossRefPubMed Wiegmann DA, ElBardissi AW, Dearani JA, Daly RC, Sundt TM III (2007) Disruptions in surgical flow and their relationship to surgical errors: an exploratory investigation. Surgery 142:658–665CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Weigl M, Antoniadis S, Chiapponi C, Bruns C, Sevdalis N (2015) The impact of intra-operative interruptions on surgeons’ perceived workload: an observational study in elective general and orthopedic surgery. Surg Endosc 29:145–153CrossRefPubMed Weigl M, Antoniadis S, Chiapponi C, Bruns C, Sevdalis N (2015) The impact of intra-operative interruptions on surgeons’ perceived workload: an observational study in elective general and orthopedic surgery. Surg Endosc 29:145–153CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Pluyter JR, Buzink SN, Rutkowski AF, Jakimowicz JJ (2010) Do absorption and realistic distraction influence performance of component task surgical procedure? Surg Endosc 24:902–907CrossRefPubMed Pluyter JR, Buzink SN, Rutkowski AF, Jakimowicz JJ (2010) Do absorption and realistic distraction influence performance of component task surgical procedure? Surg Endosc 24:902–907CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Hsu KE, Man FY, Gizicki RA, Feldman LS, Fried GM (2008) Experienced surgeons can do more than one thing at a time: effect of distraction on performance of a simple laparoscopic and cognitive task by experienced and novice surgeons. Surg Endosc 22:196–201CrossRefPubMed Hsu KE, Man FY, Gizicki RA, Feldman LS, Fried GM (2008) Experienced surgeons can do more than one thing at a time: effect of distraction on performance of a simple laparoscopic and cognitive task by experienced and novice surgeons. Surg Endosc 22:196–201CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Treadwell JR, Lucas S, Tsou AY (2014) Surgical checklists: a systematic review of impacts and implementation. BMJ Qual Saf 23:299–318CrossRefPubMed Treadwell JR, Lucas S, Tsou AY (2014) Surgical checklists: a systematic review of impacts and implementation. BMJ Qual Saf 23:299–318CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Gluck PA (2012) Patient safety: some progress and many challenges. Obstet Gynecol 120:1149–1159PubMed Gluck PA (2012) Patient safety: some progress and many challenges. Obstet Gynecol 120:1149–1159PubMed
20.
go back to reference de Vries EN, Prins HA, Crolla RM, den Outer AJ, van Andel G, van Helden SH, Schlack WS, van Putten MA, Gouma DJ, Dijkgraaf MG, Smorenburg SM, Boermeester MA (2010) Effect of a comprehensive surgical safety system on patient outcomes. New Engl J Med 363:1928–1937CrossRefPubMed de Vries EN, Prins HA, Crolla RM, den Outer AJ, van Andel G, van Helden SH, Schlack WS, van Putten MA, Gouma DJ, Dijkgraaf MG, Smorenburg SM, Boermeester MA (2010) Effect of a comprehensive surgical safety system on patient outcomes. New Engl J Med 363:1928–1937CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Birkmeyer JD (2012) Progress and challenges in improving surgical outcomes. Br J Surg 99:1467–1469CrossRefPubMed Birkmeyer JD (2012) Progress and challenges in improving surgical outcomes. Br J Surg 99:1467–1469CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Buzink SN, van LL, de Hingh, Jakimowicz IH JJ (2010) Risk-sensitive events during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: the influence of the integrated operating room and a preoperative checklist tool. Surg Endosc 24:1990–1995CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Buzink SN, van LL, de Hingh, Jakimowicz IH JJ (2010) Risk-sensitive events during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: the influence of the integrated operating room and a preoperative checklist tool. Surg Endosc 24:1990–1995CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
go back to reference Zheng B, Martinec DV, Cassera MA, Swanstrom LL (2008) A quantitative study of disruption in the operating room during laparoscopic antireflux surgery. Surg Endosc 22:2171–2177CrossRefPubMed Zheng B, Martinec DV, Cassera MA, Swanstrom LL (2008) A quantitative study of disruption in the operating room during laparoscopic antireflux surgery. Surg Endosc 22:2171–2177CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Fleiss JL (1986) The design and analysis of clinical experiments. Wiley, New York Fleiss JL (1986) The design and analysis of clinical experiments. Wiley, New York
26.
go back to reference Feinstein AR, Cicchetti DV (1990) High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 43:543–549CrossRefPubMed Feinstein AR, Cicchetti DV (1990) High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 43:543–549CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Vincent C, Moorthy K, Sarker SK, Chang A, Darzi AW (2004) Systems approaches to surgical quality and safety: from concept to measurement. Ann Surg 239:475–482CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Vincent C, Moorthy K, Sarker SK, Chang A, Darzi AW (2004) Systems approaches to surgical quality and safety: from concept to measurement. Ann Surg 239:475–482CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
go back to reference Dankelman J, Grimbergen CA (2005) Systems approach to reduce errors in surgery. Surg Endosc 19:1017–1021CrossRefPubMed Dankelman J, Grimbergen CA (2005) Systems approach to reduce errors in surgery. Surg Endosc 19:1017–1021CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Calland JF, Guerlain S, Adams RB, Tribble CG, Foley E, Chekan EG (2002) A systems approach to surgical safety. Surg Endosc 16:1005–1014CrossRefPubMed Calland JF, Guerlain S, Adams RB, Tribble CG, Foley E, Chekan EG (2002) A systems approach to surgical safety. Surg Endosc 16:1005–1014CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Russ S, Arora S, Wharton R, Wheelock A, Hull L, Sharma E, Darzi A, Vincent C, Sevdalis N (2013) Measuring safety and efficiency in the operating room: development and validation of a metric for evaluating task execution in the operating room. J Am Coll Surg 216:472–481CrossRefPubMed Russ S, Arora S, Wharton R, Wheelock A, Hull L, Sharma E, Darzi A, Vincent C, Sevdalis N (2013) Measuring safety and efficiency in the operating room: development and validation of a metric for evaluating task execution in the operating room. J Am Coll Surg 216:472–481CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Verdaasdonk EG, Stassen LP, van der Elst M, Karsten TM, Dankelman J (2007) Problems with technical equipment during laparoscopic surgery. An observational study. Surg Endosc 21:275–279CrossRefPubMed Verdaasdonk EG, Stassen LP, van der Elst M, Karsten TM, Dankelman J (2007) Problems with technical equipment during laparoscopic surgery. An observational study. Surg Endosc 21:275–279CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Linkin DR, Sausman C, Santos L, Lyons C, Fox C, Aumiller L, Esterhai J, Pittman B, Lautenbach E (2005) Applicability of healthcare failure mode and effects analysis to healthcare epidemiology: evaluation of the sterilization and use of surgical instruments. Clin Infect Dis 41:1014–1019CrossRefPubMed Linkin DR, Sausman C, Santos L, Lyons C, Fox C, Aumiller L, Esterhai J, Pittman B, Lautenbach E (2005) Applicability of healthcare failure mode and effects analysis to healthcare epidemiology: evaluation of the sterilization and use of surgical instruments. Clin Infect Dis 41:1014–1019CrossRefPubMed
33.
go back to reference Bezemer J, Cope A, Korkiakangas T, Kress G, Murtagh G, Weldon SM, Kneebone R (2017) Microanalysis of video from the operating room: an underused approach to patient safety research. BMJ Qual Saf 26:583–587CrossRefPubMed Bezemer J, Cope A, Korkiakangas T, Kress G, Murtagh G, Weldon SM, Kneebone R (2017) Microanalysis of video from the operating room: an underused approach to patient safety research. BMJ Qual Saf 26:583–587CrossRefPubMed
34.
go back to reference Makary MA (2013) The power of video recording: taking quality to the next level. JAMA 309:1591–1592CrossRefPubMed Makary MA (2013) The power of video recording: taking quality to the next level. JAMA 309:1591–1592CrossRefPubMed
35.
go back to reference Parsons JK, Messer K, Palazzi K, Stroup SP, Chang D (2014) Diffusion of surgical innovations, patient safety, and minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. JAMA Surg 149:845–851CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Parsons JK, Messer K, Palazzi K, Stroup SP, Chang D (2014) Diffusion of surgical innovations, patient safety, and minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. JAMA Surg 149:845–851CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
36.
go back to reference Chantler C (1999) The role and education of doctors in the delivery of health care. Lancet 353:1178–1181CrossRefPubMed Chantler C (1999) The role and education of doctors in the delivery of health care. Lancet 353:1178–1181CrossRefPubMed
37.
go back to reference Guedon AC, Wauben LS, Overvelde M, Blok JH, van der Elst M, Dankelman J, van den Dobbelsteen JJ (2014) Safety status system for operating room devices. Technol Health Care 22:795–803PubMed Guedon AC, Wauben LS, Overvelde M, Blok JH, van der Elst M, Dankelman J, van den Dobbelsteen JJ (2014) Safety status system for operating room devices. Technol Health Care 22:795–803PubMed
38.
go back to reference Henken KR, Jansen FW, Klein J, Stassen LP, Dankelman J, van den Dobbelsteen JJ (2012) Implications of the law on video recording in clinical practice. Surg Endosc 26:2909–2916CrossRefPubMed Henken KR, Jansen FW, Klein J, Stassen LP, Dankelman J, van den Dobbelsteen JJ (2012) Implications of the law on video recording in clinical practice. Surg Endosc 26:2909–2916CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Measuring surgical safety during minimally invasive surgical procedures: a validation study
Authors
Mathijs D. Blikkendaal
Sara R. C. Driessen
Sharon P. Rodrigues
Johann P. T. Rhemrev
Maddy J. G. H. Smeets
Jenny Dankelman
John J. van den Dobbelsteen
Frank Willem Jansen
Publication date
01-07-2018
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 7/2018
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6021-7

Other articles of this Issue 7/2018

Surgical Endoscopy 7/2018 Go to the issue