Advertisement

A Continuum of Interfaces to Engage Surgical Staff in Efficient Collaboration

  • Juliette RambourgEmail author
  • Hélène Gaspard-Boulinc
  • Stéphane Conversy
  • Marc Garbey
Systems-Level Quality Improvement
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Systems-Level Quality Improvement

Abstract

Large hospital surgical suites must combine high quality of care with an efficient management of operations. However, the diversity of procedures, staff, and patients present important challenges for staff collaboration. The complexity of flows between tasks and places, such as interconnections between pre-operation, post-operation and intensive care units, led previous research to address these issues separately using checklists, scheduling, or specialized human-computer interfaces. Approaches to treat the surgical suite as a whole entity have not been explored yet. Here, we build upon a cyber-physical system comprising an electronic whiteboard and different sensors tracking the status of operating rooms to design a continuum of mobile and fixed, shared computer interfaces. The interfaces disseminate the information through different locations and devices and allow for its manipulation in order to foster appropriate collaboration on unforeseen events and decisions. We present our design rationale process, involving the different surgical suite users and stakeholders and report on the architecture of the system.

Keywords

Hospital Cyber-physical system Surgical suite Collaboration Surgical flow Perioperative activity Awareness Information mobility 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Dunn and OPC OR crew at Houston Methodist Hospital who actively participated in this study.

Funding

This study was funded by National Science Foundation under the I/UCRC for Cyber-Physical Systems for the Hospital Operating Room Grant No.1657550.

Compliance with ethical standards

After being reviewed by the Director of Office of Research Protections of the Houston Methodist Research Institute, this project was declared to not require either IRB or ARAF review.

Conflict of interest

Author Juliette Rambourg declares that she has no conflict of interest. Author Hélène Gaspard-Boulinc declares that she has no conflict of interest. Author Stéphane Conversy declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author Marc Garbey declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    HIMSS analytics Database, 2015.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cuschieri, A., Nature of human error: Implications for surgical practice. Ann. Surg. 244(5):642, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Erdogan, S. A., and Denton, B. T., Surgery Planning and Scheduling. Wiley Encyclopedia of operations research and management science, 2011.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Doryab, A., and Bardram, J. E., Designing activity-aware recommender systems for operating rooms. In: Proceedings of the 2011 Workshop on Context-Awareness in Retrieval and Recommendation. ACM, 2011, 43–46.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bossen, C., and Foss, M., The collaborative work of hospital porters: Accountability, visibility and configurations of work. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. ACM, 2016, 965–979.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bardram, J. E., and Bossen, C., A web of coordinative artifacts: Collaborative work at a hospital ward. In: Proceedings of the 2005 International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work. ACM, 2005, 168–176.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Garbey, M., Joerger, G., Rambourg, J., Dunkin, B., and Bass, B., Multiscale modeling of surgical flow in a large operating room suite: Understanding the mechanism of accumulation of delays in clinical practice. Procedia Computer Science 108:1863–1872, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee, I., Sokolsky, O., Chen, S., Hatcliff, J., Jee, E., Kim, B., King, A., Mullen-Fortino, M., Park, S., Roederer, A., and Venkatasubramanian, K. K., Challenges and research directions in medical cyber–physical systems. Proc. IEEE 100(1):75–90, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haque, S. A., Aziz, S. M., and Rahman, M., Review of cyber-physical system in healthcare. International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 10(4):217415, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tang, C., and Carpendale, S., Evaluating the deployment of a mobile technology in a hospital ward. In: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. ACM, 2008, 205–214.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moss, J., Xiao, Y., and Zubaidah, S., The operating room charge nurse: Coordinator and communicator. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 9(Supplement_6):S70–S74, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Prgomet, M., Georgiou, A., and Westbrook, J. I., The impact of mobile handheld technology on hospital physicians’ work practices and patient care: A systematic review. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 16(6):792–801, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kusunoki, D., Sarcevic, A., Zhang, Z., and Yala, M., Sketching awareness: A participatory study to elicit designs for supporting ad hoc emergency medical teamwork. Comput. Supported Coop Work (CSCW) 24(1):1–38, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bardram, J. E., and Nørskov, N., A context-aware patient safety system for the operating room. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing. ACM, 2008, 272–281.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Amir, O., Grosz, B. J., Gajos, K. Z., Swenson, S. M., and Sanders, L. M., From care plans to care coordination: Opportunities for computer support of teamwork in complex healthcare. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2015, 1419–1428.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kapur, N., Parand, A., Soukup, T., Reader, T., and Sevdalis, N., Aviation and healthcare: A comparative review with implications for patient safety. JRSM open 7(1):2054270415616548, 2015.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Toff, N. J., Human factors in anaesthesia: Lessons from aviation. Br. J. Anaesth. 105(1):21–25, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Helmreich, R. L., On error management: lessons from aviation. Bmj 320(7237):781–785, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Surgical suite., (n.d.), Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition, 2009. Retrieved February 7 2018 from https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/surgical+suite.
  20. 20.
    Harrison, S., and Dourish, P., Re-place-ing space: The roles of place and space in collaborative systems. In: Proceedings of the 1996 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. ACM, 1996, 67–76.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Joerger, G., Rambourg, J., Gaspard-Boulinc, H., Conversy, S., Bass, B., Dunkin, B. J., and Garbey, M., A cyber-physical system to improve the management of a large suite of operating rooms. ACM Transactions on Cyber-Physical Systems 2:34, 2017.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Joerger, G., Rambourg, J., Garbey, M., Conversy, S., and Gaspard-Boulinc, H., Re-engineer operating room data acquisition and transmission for improving surgical suite awareness and management. In: Biomedical & Health Informatics (BHI), 2017 IEEE EMBS International Conference. IEEE, 2017, 205–208.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Garbey, M., Joerger, G., Huang, A., Salmon, R., Kim, J., Sherman, V., Dunkin, B., and Bass, B., An intelligent hospital operating room to improve patient health care. Journal of Computational Surgery 2(1):3, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Huang, A. Y., Joerger, G., Fikfak, V., Salmon, R., Dunkin, B. J., Bass, B. L., and Garbey, M., The SmartOR: A distributed sensor network to improve operating room efficiency. Surg. Endosc. 31(9):3590–3595, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Huang, A. Y., Joerger, G., Salmon, R., Dunkin, B., Sherman, V., Bass, B. L., and Garbey, M., A robust and non-obtrusive automatic event tracking system for operating room management to improve patient care. Surg. Endosc. 30(8):3638–3645, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Garbey, M., Joerger, G., Rambourg, R., Dunkin, B., and Bass, L. B., Multiscale modeling of surgical flow explains lognormal distribution of surgical time and occurrence of large delays. PLoS ONE, 2018 Under revision.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Villafruela, J. M., San José, J. F., Castro, F., and Zarzuelo, A., Airflow patterns through a sliding door during opening and foot traffic in operating rooms. Build. Environ. 109:190–198, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yao, W., Chu, C. H., and Li, Z., The use of RFID in healthcare: Benefits and barriers. In: RFID-Technology and Applications (RFID-TA), 2010 IEEE International Conference. IEEE, 2010, 128–134.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Conversy, S., Lemort, A., and Valès, S., MAMMI WP1: Review of existing systems. Technical report, T06-043, Eurocontrol, 2007.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Conversy, S., Gaspard-Boulinc, H., Chatty, S., Valès, S., Dupré, C., and Ollagnon, C., Supporting air traffic control collaboration with a TableTop system. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2011 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. ACM, 2011, 425–434.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Miller, J. H., and Page, S. E., Complex Adaptive Systems: An Introduction to Computational Models of Social Life: An Introduction to Computational Models of Social Life. Princeton: Princeton university press, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Burns, K. K., Bellows, M., Eigenseher, C., and Gallivan, J., Practical’resources to support patient and family engagement in healthcare decisions: A scoping review. BMC Health Serv. Res. 14(1):175, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Houston Methodist HospitalHoustonUSA
  2. 2.ENAC – French University of Civil AviationToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations