World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 38, Issue 4, pp 751–758 | Cite as

Impact of Intraoperative Distractions on Patient Safety: A Prospective Descriptive Study Using Validated Instruments

  • Nick Sevdalis
  • Shabnam Undre
  • James McDermott
  • Jasdeep Giddie
  • Lila Diner
  • Gillian Smith
Article

Abstract

Background

There is emerging evidence indicating that distractions in the operating room (OR) are prevalent. Studies have shown a negative impact of distractions, but they have been conducted mostly with residents in simulated environments. We tested the hypothesis that intraoperative distractions are associated with deterioration in patient safety checks in the OR.

Methods

We assessed 24 elective urologic procedures. Blinded trained assessors (two surgeons, one psychologist) used validated instruments to prospectively assess in vivo frequency and severity of distractions (related to communication, phones/pagers, equipment/provisions, OR environment, other hospital departments, or a member of the OR team) and completion of safety-related tasks (related to the patient, equipment, and communication). Descriptive and correlational analyses were conducted.

Results

Mean case duration was 70 min (mean intraoperative time 31 min). A mean of 4.0 communication distractions (range 0–9) and 2.48 other distractions (range 0–5) were recorded per case (distraction rate of one per 10 min). Distractions from external visitors (addressed to the entire team or the surgeon) and distractions due to lack of coordination between hospital departments were most disruptive. Regarding safety checks, patient tasks were completed most often (85–100 %) followed by equipment tasks (75–100 %) and communication tasks (55–90 %). Correlational analyses showed that more frequent/severe communication distractions were linked to lower completion of patient checks intraoperatively (median rho –0.56, p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Distractions are prevalent in ORs and in this study were linked to deterioration in intraoperative patient safety checks. Surgeons should be mindful of their tolerance to distractions. Surgical leadership can help control distractions and reduce their potential impact on patient safety and performance.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The National Institute for Health Research funded this research via the Imperial Center for Patient Safety and Service Quality (www.cpssq.org).

References

  1. 1.
    Weigl M, Müller A, Vincent C et al (2012) The association of workflow interruptions and hospital doctors’ workload: a prospective observational study. BMJ Qual Saf 21:399–407PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Weigl M, Müller A, Zupanc A et al (2009) Participant observation of time allocation, direct patient contact and simultaneous activities in hospital physicians. BMC Health Serv Res 29:110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rivera-Rodriguez AJ, Karsh BT (2010) Interruptions and distractions in healthcare: review and reappraisal. Qual Saf Health Care 19:304–312PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grundgeiger T, Sanderson P (2009) Interruptions in healthcare: theoretical views. Int J Med Inform 78:293–307PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sevdalis N, Forrest D, Undre S et al (2008) Annoyances, disruptions, and interruptions in surgery: the disruptions in surgery index (DiSI). World J Surg 32:1643–1650. doi: 10.1007/s00268-008-9624-7 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Healey AN, Sevdalis N, Vincent C (2006) Measuring intra-operative interference from distraction and interruption observed in the operating theatre. Ergonomics 49:589–604PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sevdalis N, Healey AN, Vincent CA (2007) Distracting communications in the operating theatre. J Eval Clin Pract 13:390–394PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Primus CP, Healey AN, Undre S (2007) Distraction in the urology operating theatre. BJU Int 99:493–494PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Healey AN, Primus CP, Koutantji M (2007) Quantifying distraction and interruption in urological surgery. Qual Saf Health Care 16:135–139PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zheng B, Martinec DV, Cassera MA et al (2008) A quantitative study of disruption in the operating room during laparoscopic antireflux surgery. Surg Endosc 22:2171–2177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wiegmann DA, El Bardissi AW, Dearani JA et al (2007) Disruptions in surgical workflow and their relationship to surgical errors: an exploratory investigation. Surgery 142:658–665PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goodell KH, Cao CG, Schwaitzberg SD (2006) Effects of cognitive distraction on performance on laparoscopic tasks. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 16:94–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hsu KE, Man FY, Gizicki RA et al (2008) Experienced surgeons can do more than one thing at a time: effect of distractions on performance of a simple laparoscopic and cognitive task by experienced and novice surgeons. Surg Endosc 22:196–201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Feuerbacher RL, Funk KH, Spight DH et al (2012) Realistic distractions and interruptions that impair simulated surgical performance by novice surgeons. Arch Surg 147:1026–1030PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Miscovic D, Rosenthal R, Zingg U et al (2008) Randomized controlled trial investigating the effect of music on the virtual reality laparoscopic learning performance of novice surgeons. Surg Endosc 22:2416–2420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Monsell S (2003) Task switching. Trends Cogn Sci 7:134–140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Undre S, Healey AN, Darzi A et al (2006) Observational assessment of surgical teamwork: a feasibility study. World J Surg 30:1774–1783. doi: 10.1007/s00268-005-0488-9 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Russ S, Arora S, Wharton R et al (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 216:472–481PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Abell N, Springer DW, Kamata S (2009) Developing and validating rapid assessment instruments. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Arora S, Sevdalis N, Aggarwal R et al (2010) Stress impairs psychomotor performance in novice laparoscopic surgeons. Surg Endosc 24:2588–2593PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Arora S, Sevdalis N, Nestel D et al (2010) The impact of stress on surgical performance: a systematic review of the literature. Surgery 147:318–330PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    CORESS (2013) A confidential reporting system for surgery. Available at: http://www.coress.org.uk
  23. 23.
    Hull L, Arora S, Kassab E et al (2011) Observational teamwork assessment for surgery: content validation and tool refinement. J Am Coll Surg 212:234–243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wilson MR, Poolton JM, Malhotra N et al (2011) Development and validation of a surgical workload measure: the surgery task load index (SURG-TLX). World J Surg 35:1961–1969. doi: 10.1007/s00268-011-1141-4 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nick Sevdalis
    • 1
  • Shabnam Undre
    • 1
  • James McDermott
    • 3
  • Jasdeep Giddie
    • 3
  • Lila Diner
    • 2
  • Gillian Smith
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Surgery and Cancer, St. Mary’s HospitalImperial College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of AnesthesiologyRoyal Free London NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK
  3. 3.Department of UrologyRoyal Free London NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK

Personalised recommendations