Advertisement

A quest for the structure of intra- and postoperative surgical team networks: does the small-world property evolve over time?

  • Ashkan EbadiEmail author
  • Patrick J. Tighe
  • Lei Zhang
  • Parisa Rashidi
Original Article

Abstract

We examined the structure of intra- and postoperative case-collaboration networks among the surgical service providers in a quaternary-care academic medical center, using retrospective electronic medical record (EMR) data. We also analyzed the evolution of the network properties over time, as changes in nodes and edges can affect the network structure. We used de-identified intra- and postoperative data for adult patients, ages ≥ 21, who received nonambulatory/nonobstetric surgery at Shands at the University of Florida between June 1, 2011 and November 1, 2014. The intraoperative segment contained 30,245 surgical cases, and the postoperative segment considered 30,202 hospitalizations. Our results confirmed the existence of small-world structure in both intra- and postoperative surgical team networks. In addition, high network density was observed in the intraoperative segment and partially in postoperative one, representing the existence of cohesive clusters of providers. We also observed that the small-world property is exhibited more in the intraoperative compared to the postoperative network. Analyzing the temporal aspects of the networks revealed that the postoperative segment tends to lose its cohesiveness as time passes. Finally, we observed the small-world structure is negatively related to patients’ outcome in both intra- and postoperative networks whereas the relation between the outcome and network density is positive. Small changes in graph-theoretic properties of the intra- and postoperative networks cause changes in the intensity of the structural properties. However, due to the special characteristics of the examined networks (e.g., high interconnectivity, team oriented), the network is less likely to lose its structural properties unless the central hubs are removed. Our results highlight the importance of stability of personnel in key positions. This highlights the important role of the central players in the network that offers change leaders the opportunity to quantify and target those nodes as mediators of process change.

Keywords

Surgery Anesthesia Network structure analysis Intra- and postoperative Small world Cohesion 

Notes

Author contributions

Conceiving and designing the experiments: AE, PJT, PR. Performing the experiments: AE. Analyzing the data: AE. Data/materials: PJT, LZ. Writing of the manuscript: AE, PJT, LZ, PR.

Funding

N/A.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no financial and/or non-financial competing interests to declare.

Ethical approval

The University of Florida Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved this study (IRB number 201400976). The data for this research were collected from the University of Florida’s Integrated Data Repository (IDR) after obtaining a confidentiality agreement from the IDR.

Informed consent

The Social Network Analysis and Mining (SNAM) journal has authors’ permission to publish the article.

References

  1. Albert R, Barabási A (2002) Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Rev Mod Phys 74(1):47MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albert R, Jeong H, Barabási A (1999) Internet: diameter of the world-wide web. Nature 401(6749):130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexanderson G (2006) About the cover: Euler and Konigsberg’s bridges: a historical view. Bull Am Math Soc 43(4):567–573zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson C, Talsma A (2011) Characterizing the structure of operating room staffing using social network analysis. Nurs Res 60(6):378–385.  https://doi.org/10.1097/NNR.0b013e3182337d97 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Austin PC (2008) Primer on statistical interpretation or methods report card on propensity-score matching in the cardiology literature from 2004 to 2006: a systematic review. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 1(1):62–67.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.108.790634 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bae S, Nikolaev A, Seo JY, Castner J (2015) Health care provider social network analysis: a systematic review. Nurs Outlook 63(5):566–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Balaban AT (1979) Chemical graphs. Theor Chem Acc Theory Comput Model (Theor Chim Acta) 53(4):355–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barnett ML, Christakis NA, O’Malley J, Onnela JP, Keating NL, Landon BE (2012) Physician patient-sharing networks and the cost and intensity of care in US hospitals. Med Care 50(2):152–160.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e31822dcef7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barocas DA, Mitchell R, Chang SS, Cookson MS (2010) Impact of surgeon and hospital volume on outcomes of radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol 28(3):243–250.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2009.03.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Baum JA, Shipilov AV, Rowley TJ (2003) Where do small worlds come from? Ind Corp Change 12(4):697–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bender EA, Canfield ER (1978) The asymptotic number of labeled graphs with given degree sequences. J Comb Theory Ser A 24(3):296–307MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bondy JA, Murty USR (1976) Graph theory with applications. Citeseer, PrincetonzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Booij LH (2007) Conflicts in the operating theatre. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 20(2):152–156.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ACO.0b013e32809f9506 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brown DL, Epstein AM, Schneider EC (2013) Influence of cardiac surgeon report cards on patient referral by cardiologists in new york state after 20 years of public reporting. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 6(6):643–648.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.113.000506 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burt RS (2004) Structural holes and good ideas. Am J Sociol 110(2):349–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Burt RS (2009) Structural holes: the social structure of competition. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Callaway DS, Newman ME, Strogatz SH, Watts DJ (2000) Network robustness and fragility: percolation on random graphs. Phys Rev Lett 85(25):5468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cowan R, Jonard N (2004) Network structure and the diffusion of knowledge. J Econ Dyn Control 28(8):1557–1575MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Creswick N, Westbrook JI (2010) Social network analysis of medication advice–seeking interactions among staff in an Australian hospital. Int J Med Inform 79(6):e116–e125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Creswick N, Westbrook JI, Braithwaite J (2009) Understanding communication networks in the emergency department. BMC Health Serv Res 9(1):247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Critchley RJ, Baker PN, Deehan DJ (2012) Does surgical volume affect outcome after primary and revision knee arthroplasty? A systematic review of the literature. Knee 19(5):513–518.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2011.11.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cunningham FC, Ranmuthugala G, Plumb J, Georgiou A, Westbrook JI, Braithwaite J (2012) Health professional networks as a vector for improving healthcare quality and safety: a systematic review. BMJ Qual Saf 21(3):239–249.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000187 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Davis GF, Yoo M, Baker WE (2003) The small world of the American corporate elite, 1982–2001. Strateg Org 1(3):301–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. De Nooy W, Mrvar A, Batagelj V (2011) Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dimick JB, Birkmeyer JD, Upchurch GR (2005) Measuring surgical quality: what’s the role of provider volume? World J Surg 29(10):1217–1221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Doll KM, Meng K, Gehrig PA, Brewster WR, Meyer A (2016) Referral patterns between high-and low-volume centers and associations with uterine cancer treatment and survival: a population-based study of Medicare, Medicaid, and privately insured women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 215(4):447 e1–447 e13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Donoho DL (1982) Breakdown properties of multivariate location estimators. Technical Report, Harvard University, Boston. http://www.Stat.Stanford.Edu/~donoho/Reports/Oldies/BPMLE.Pdf. Accessed Dec 2018
  28. Ebadi A, Schiffauerova A (2015) On the relation between the small world structure and scientific activities. PLoS One 10(3):e0121129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ebadi A, Tighe PJ, Zhang L, Rashidi P (2016) On the scale-free characteristics of surgical team networks. In: Paper presented at the 12th international conference on webometrics, infometrics, scientometrics and 17th collnet meeting, FranceGoogle Scholar
  30. Erdos P, Rényi A (1960) On the evolution of random graphs. Publ Math Inst Hung Acad Sci 5(1):17–60MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Eslami H, Ebadi A, Schiffauerova A (2013) Effect of collaboration network structure on knowledge creation and technological performance: the case of biotechnology in canada. Scientometrics 97(1):99–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Eubank S, Guclu H, Kumar VA, Marathe MV (2004) Modelling disease outbreaks in realistic urban social networks. Nature 429(6988):180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fatt CK, Ujum EA, Ratnavelu K (2010) The structure of collaboration in the journal of finance. Scientometrics 85(3):849–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fitzgerald TL, Seymore NM, Kachare SD, Zervos EE, Wong JH (2013) Measuring the impact of multidisciplinary care on quality for pancreatic surgery: transition to a focused, very high-volume program. Am Surg 79(8):775–780Google Scholar
  35. Gawande AA, Zinner MJ, Studdert DM, Brennan TA (2003) Analysis of errors reported by surgeons at three teaching hospitals. Surgery 133(6):614–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gerard RJ (1995) Teaming up: making the transition to a self-directed, team-based organization. Acad Manag Exec 9(3):91–93Google Scholar
  37. Giabbanelli PJ (2011) The small-world property in networks growing by active edges. Adv Complex Syst 14(06):853–869MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Giabbanelli PJ, Mazauric D, Bermond J (2011) On the average path length of deterministic and stochastics recursive networks. Complex Netw 116:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Glance LG, Dick A, Osler TM, Li Y, Mukamel DB (2006) Impact of changing the statistical methodology on hospital and surgeon ranking: the case of the New York state cardiac surgery report card. Med Care 44(4):311–319.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000204106.64619.2a CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Glance LG, Kellermann AL, Hannan EL, Fleisher LA, Eaton MP, Dutton RP et al (2015) The impact of anesthesiologists on coronary artery bypass graft surgery outcomes. Anesth Analg 120(3):526–533.  https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000000522 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gray JE, Davis DA, Pursley DM, Smallcomb JE, Geva A, Chawla NV (2010) Network analysis of team structure in the neonatal intensive care unit. Pediatrics 125(6):e1460–e1467.  https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-2621 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Guimera R, Uzzi B, Spiro J, Amaral LA (2005) Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance. Science (New York, N.Y.) 308(5722):697–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gulati R, Sytch M, Tatarynowicz A (2012) The rise and fall of small worlds: exploring the dynamics of social structure. Organ Sci 23(2):449–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hanneman RA, Riddle M (2011) Concepts and measures for basic network analysis. In: Carrington P, Scott J (eds) The SAGE handbook of social network analysis. SAGE Ltd., Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 340–369Google Scholar
  45. He J, Fallah MH (2009) Is inventor network structure a predictor of cluster evolution? Technol Forecast Soc Change 76(1):91–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hervey SL, Purves HR, Guller U, Toth AP, Vail TP, Pietrobon R (2003) Provider volume of total knee arthroplasties and patient outcomes in the HCUP-nationwide inpatient sample. JBJS 85(9):1775–1783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Homans GC (2013) The human group. Routledge, AbingdonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ilgen DR (1999) Teams embedded in organizations: some implications. Am Psychol 54(2):129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Jacobs JP (2017) The society of thoracic surgeons congenital heart surgery database public reporting initiative. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Pediatr Card Surg Annu 20:43–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Jones LK, Jennings BM, Goelz RM, Haythorn KW, Zivot JB, de Waal FB (2016) An ethogram to quantify operating room behavior. Ann Behav Med 50(4):487–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Joyce DL, Lahr BD, Maltais S, Said SM, Stulak JM, Nuttall GA, Joyce LD (2018) Integration of simulation components enhances team training in cardiac surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 155(6):2518.e5–2524.e5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kaneko T, Hirakawa K, Fushimi K (2014) Relationship between peri-operative outcomes and hospital surgical volume of total hip arthroplasty in japan. Health Policy 117(1):48–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.03.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kaplan B (2014) Report cards and quality: do center report cards predict quality or simply predict the next report card? Am J Transplant 14(1):238–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kim CG, Jo S, Kim JS (2012) Impact of surgical volume on nationwide hospital mortality after pancreaticoduodenectomy. World J Gastroenterol 18(31):4175–4181.  https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v18.i31.4175 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kogut B, Walker G (2001) The small world of Germany and the durability of national networks. Am Sociol Rev 66:317–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lawrence DE (2003) Cluster-based bounded influence regression (Doctoral dissertation)Google Scholar
  57. Li W, Lin Y, Liu Y (2007) The structure of weighted small-world networks. Phys A 376:708–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lin N (2002) Social capital: a theory of social structure and action. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  59. Lurie SJ, Fogg TT, Dozier AM (2009) Social network analysis as a method of assessing institutional culture: three case studies. Acad Med J Assoc Am Med Coll 84(8):1029–1035.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181ad16d3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Luscombe NM, Babu MM, Yu H, Snyder M (2004) Genomic analysis of regulatory network dynamics reveals large topological changes. Nature 431(7006):308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mascia D, Cicchetti A, Fantini MP, Damiani G, Ricciardi W (2011) Physicians’ propensity to collaborate and their attitude towards EBM: a cross-sectional study. BMC Health Serv Res 11(1):172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Molloy M, Reed B (1995) A critical point for random graphs with a given degree sequence. Random Struct Algorithms 6(2-3):161–180MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Moody J (2004) The structure of a social science collaboration network: disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. Am Sociol Rev 69(2):213–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Moody J, White DR (2003) Structural cohesion and embeddedness: a hierarchical concept of social groups. Am Sociol Rev 68:103–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Paige J, Kozmenko V, Morgan B, Howell DS, Chauvin S, Hilton C et al (2007) From the flight deck to the operating room: an initial pilot study of the feasibility and potential impact of true interdisciplinary team training using high-fidelity simulation. J Surg Educ 64(6):369–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Papachristofi O, Klein A, Sharples L (2016) Evaluation of the effects of multiple providers in complex surgical interventions. Stat Med 35(28):5222–5246MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Pirzada S (2007) Applications of graph theory. PAMM 7(1):2070013–2070013MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Preston L, Turner J, Booth A, O’Keeffe C, Campbell F, Jesurasa A et al (2015) Is there a relationship between surgical case volume and mortality in congenital heart disease services? A rapid evidence review. BMJ Open 5(12):e009252–e002015.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009252 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Reagans R, McEvily B (2003) Network structure and knowledge transfer: the effects of cohesion and range. Adm Sci Q 48(2):240–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rosenstein AH, O’Daniel M (2008) A survey of the impact of disruptive behaviors and communication defects on patient safety. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 34(8):464–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Salz T, Sandler RS (2008) The effect of hospital and surgeon volume on outcomes for rectal cancer surgery. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 6(11):1185–1193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Samarth CN, Gloor PA (2009) Process efficiency. redesigning social networks to improve surgery patient flow. J Healthc Inf Manag JHIM 23(1):20–26Google Scholar
  73. Segall N, Bonifacio AS, Schroeder RA, Barbeito A, Rogers D, Thornlow DK et al (2012). Can we make postoperative patient handovers safer? A systematic review of the literature. Anesth Analg 115(1):102–115.  https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0b013e318253af4b CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Shahian DM, Normand S, Torchiana DF, Lewis SM, Pastore JO, Kuntz RE, Dreyer PI (2001) Cardiac surgery report cards: comprehensive review and statistical critique1. Ann Thorac Surg 72(6):2155–2168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Shahian DM, Torchiana DF, Shemin RJ, Rawn JD, Normand ST (2005) Massachusetts cardiac surgery report card: implications of statistical methodology. Ann Thorac Surg 80(6):2106–2113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Shahian DM, Silverstein T, Lovett AF, Wolf RE, Normand SL (2007) Comparison of clinical and administrative data sources for hospital coronary artery bypass graft surgery report cards. Circulation 115(12):1518–1527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Shahian DM, Edwards FH, Jacobs JP, Prager RL, Normand ST, Shewan CM et al (2011) Public reporting of cardiac surgery performance: part 1—history, rationale, consequences. Ann Thorac Surg 92(3):S2–S11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Shirinivas S, Vetrivel S, Elango N (2010) Applications of graph theory in computer science an overview. Int J Eng Sci Technol 2(9):4610–4621Google Scholar
  79. Song C, Havlin S, Makse HA (2005) Self-similarity of complex networks. Nature 433(7024):392–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Stahel WA (1981a) Breakdown of covariance estimators. (No. Research Report 31). Fachgruppe für Statistik, Eidgenössische Techn. HochschGoogle Scholar
  81. Stahel WA (1981b) Robuste schatzungen: Infinitisimale optimalitat und schatzunguen von kovarianzmatrizen (Ph.d. thesis no. 6881). http://e-collection.ethbib.ethz.ch/view/eth:21890. Accessed Dec 2018
  82. Sun W (2013) Random walks on generalized koch networks. Phys Scr 88(4):045006zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Sylvester JJ (1878) On an application of the new atomic theory to the graphical representation of the invariants and covariants of binary quantics, with three appendices. Am J Math 1(1):64–104MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Tighe PJ, Smith JC, Boezaart AP, Lucas SD (2012) Social network analysis and quantification of a prototypical acute pain medicine and regional anesthesia service. Pain Med 13(6):808–819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Tighe PJ, Patel SS, Gravenstein N, Davies L, Lucas SD, Bernard HR (2014) The operating room: It’sa small world (and scale free network) after all. J Insna 34(1&2)Google Scholar
  86. Todorov V, Filzmoser P (2009) An object-oriented framework for robust multivariate analysis. J Stat Softw 32(3):1–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Tu JV, Donovan LR, Lee DS, Wang JT, Austin PC, Alter DA, Ko DT (2009) Effectiveness of public report cards for improving the quality of cardiac care: the EFFECT study: a randomized trial. JAMA 302(21):2330–2337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Uzzi B, Spiro J (2005) Collaboration and creativity: the small world problem. Am J Sociol 111(2):447–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Watts DJ, Strogatz SH (1998) Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature 393(6684):440zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Weller J, Civil I, Torrie J, Cumin D, Garden A, Corter A, Merry A (2016) Can team training make surgery safer? lessons for national implementation of a simulation-based programme. N Z Med J 129 (1443):9–17Google Scholar
  91. West E, Barron DN, Dowsett J, Newton JN (1999) Hierarchies and cliques in the social networks of health care professionals: implications for the design of dissemination strategies. Soc Sci Med 48(5):633–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biomedical EngineeringUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of AnesthesiologyUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations