Reducing errors in the operating room

Surgical proficiency and quality assurance of execution
Surgical errors section

Abstract

Technical operative errors cause surgical operative morbidity and adversely affect the clinical outcome of patients. Surgical proficiency thus underpins good and safe practice. In this context, standardization of endoscopic surgical operations and their execution are essential for the procurement and maintenance of quality assurance in endoscopic surgical practice. There is no clash between individual- (surgical proficiency) and system-based defense systems in the prevention of surgical errors — both underpin safe surgical practice. Although more human factors and surgical research are needed, it is possible to formulate and adopt a surgical error reduction system for endoscopic operations based on standardization of operations, surgical operative proficiency, and human reliability assessment and its related clinical counterpart, observational clinical human reliability assessment.

Key words:

Coal face Surgical and technical errors Surgical proficiency Standardization of operations and quality assurance HRA OCHRA SERS 

References

  1. 1.
    Archer SB, Brown DW, Smith CD (2001) Bile duct injury during LC: results of a national survey Ann Surg 234: 776–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Billings CE, Woods DD (2001) Human error in perspective. The patient safety movement Postgrad Med 109: 13–17Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brown SI, Frank TG, Cuschieri A, Sharpe R, Cartwright C (2003) Optimization of the projection screening a display system for minimal access surgery Surg Endosc 17: 1252–1255Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Campbell PA, Creswell AB, Frank TG, Cuschieri A (2003) Real-time thermography during vessel sealing and dissection Surg Endosc 17: 1640–1645CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cooper MJ, Reid GD, Kaloo P (2002) Respiratory symptoms as an indication of undiagnosed bowel perforation following laparoscopic surgery: an observation Aust N Z Obstet Gynaecol 42: 545–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Csendes A, Navarrette C, Burdeles P, et al. (2001) Treatment of common bile duct injuries during LC: endoscopic and surgical management World J Surg 25: 1346–1351CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cuschieri A, (2000) Human reliability assessment in surgery—a new approach for improving surgical performance and clinical outcome Ann R Coll Surg Engl 82: 83–87PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cuschieri A, (2003) Medical errors, incidents, accidents and violations Min Invas Ther Allied Technol 12: 111–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cuschieri A, (2003) Lest we forget the surgeon Sem Laparosc Surg 10: 141–148Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Doganay M, Kama NA, Rees E, et al. (2002) Management of main bile duct injuries that occur during LC Surg Endosc 16: 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dondrin Y, Gopher D, Olin M, et al. (1995) A look into the nature and causes of human errors in the intensive care unit Crit Care Med 23: 294–300PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Embrey DE (1986) SHERPA: a systematic error reduction and predictive approach. Proceedings of the Advances in Human Factors in Nuclear Power Systems meeting, Knoxville, TN, USAGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ferriman A, (2000) Two thirds of injuries initially missed Br Med J 321: 784Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Haag R, Cuschieri A (1993) Recent advances in high-frequency electrosurgery: development of automated systems J R Coll Surg Edinburgh 38: 354–364Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hanna GB, Shimi SM, Cuschieri A (1988) Task performance in endoscopic surgery is influenced by location of image display Ann Surg 227:484Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hjelmqvist (2000) Complications of laparoscopic cholecystectomy as recorded in the Swedish Laparoscopic Registry. Eur J Surg Suppl 585: 18–21Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kennedy A, Baccino T (1995) The effects of screen refresh rate on editing operations using a computer mouse pointing device Q J Exp Psychol 48A: 55–71Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kennedy A, Murray WS (1996) Eye movement control during the inspection of words under conditions of pulsating illumination Eur J Cogn Psychol 8: 381–403Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kohn LT, Coorigan JM, Donaldson MS (eds) (1999) To err is human: building a safer heath system. National Academy Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Morgenstern L, (1995) Achilles’ heel and laparoscopic surgery Surg Endosc 9: 383CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Orlando R, Lirassi F (2000) Delayed recognition of inadvertent gut injury during laparoscopy Surg Endosc 14: 1188Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Putcha RV, Burdick JS (2003) Management of iatrogenic perforation Gastroenterol Clin North Am 32: 1289–1309CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rasmussen J, (1983) Skill, rules and knowledge; signals, signs, and symbols, and other distinction in human performance models IEEE Trans Systems Man Cybernetics SMC 13: 257–266Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reason J (1990) Human error. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Reason J, (2000) Human error: models and management Br Med J 30: 768–770Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Savader S, Lillemoe K, Prescott C, et al. (1997) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy related bile duct injuries. A health and financial disater Ann Surg 225: 268–273CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tang B, Hanna GB, Bax NMA, Cuschieri A (2004) Analysis of technical surgical errors during initial experience of laparoscopic pyloromyotomy by a group of Dutch pediatric surgeons. Surg Endosc, online 26 Oct, 10.1007/s00464-004-8100-1Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tang B, Hanna GB, Joice P, Cuschieri A (2004) Identification and categorization of technical errors by observational clinical human reliability assessment (OCHRA) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy Arch Surg 139: 1215–1220CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tarek AE, Cuschieri A (2003) How safe is high-power ultrasonic dissection? Ann Surg 237: 186–191CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vilas GA, (2000) Laparoscopic bowel injuries: forty ligated gynaecological cases in Canada J Obstet Gynecol Can 24: 224–230Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wade NJ, (1996) Frames of reference in vision Min Invas Ther Allied Technol 5: 435–439Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Way LW, Stewart L, Gantert W, et al. (2003) Causes and prevention of laparoscopic bile duct injuries: analysis of 252 cases from a human factors and cognitive psychology perspective Ann Surg 237: 460–469CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Advanced University Studies of S'AnnaItaly

Personalised recommendations