Skip to main content

The impact of distractions and interruptions during Cesarean Sections: a prospective study in a London teaching hospital

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics volume 298, pages 313–318 (2018)Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

During Cesarean Sections, distractions which interrupt task specific activities include auditory, equipment, theatre traffic, and irrelevant communication. Aims of this study were to investigate frequency and types of distractions and to assess impact on patient safety and theatre efficiency.

Methods

Prospective observational study in a London hospital in women undergoing elective and emergency Cesarean Sections. Distractions were recorded prospectively in primiparous women having uncomplicated elective and emergency Cesarean Sections over a 4 week period. Level of distraction is categorized as I: no noticeable impact on surgical team; II: ≥ 1 team member affected; and III: all members affected. Safety outcomes assessed included perioperative complications such as postpartum hemorrhage, organ injury, postsurgical pyrexia (first 48 h), return to theatre, readmissions, and postdelivery anemia < 7 g/dl.

Results

Data from 33 elective and 23 emergency cases were collected. Mean number of level II/III distractions/case was 13.20 (± 6.93) and number of level II/III distracting events was greater during elective compared to emergency cases (mean 14.91 vs 12.00, p = 0.04). In total, 17.89% of distractions occurred during crucial part of surgery between skin incision and delivery of baby, while delays resulting from level II/III distractions accounted for 11.25% of total operating time. There were no intra- or postoperative complications observed in the cohort of cases.

Conclusions

Distractions did not culminate in perioperative complications, but disrupted surgeons’ task activity, prolonging mean procedure duration by 26.8%. Recognising sources and effects of distractions will enable measures to be taken to improve theatre productivity and patient safety.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Chou CD, Funk K (1990) Management of multiple tasks: cockpit management task errors. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics, November 4–7, pp 470–442

  2. Latorella KA (1996) Investigating interruptions: an example from the flightdeck. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, vol 40, pp 249–253

  3. Chisholm CD, Dornfield AM, Nelson DR, Cordell WH (2001) Work interrupted: a comparison of workplace interruptions in emergency department and primary care offices. Ann Emerg Med 38:146–514

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Brixley JJ, Tang Z, Robinson DJ, Johnson CW, Johnson TR, Turley JP, Patel VL, Zhang J (2008) Interruption in one trauma centre: a case study. Int J Med Inform 77:235–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Healey AN, Primus CP, Koutanji M (2007) Quantifying distraction and interruption in urological surgery. Qual Saf Health Care 16:135–139

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Jenkins A, Wilkinson JV, Akeroyd MA, Brown MA (2015) Distractions during critical phases of anaesthesia for caesarean section: an observational study. Anaesthesia 70(5):543–548

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Yoong W, Khin A, Ramlal N, Loabile B, Forman S (2015) Interruptions and distractions in the gynaecological operating theatre: irritating or dangerous? Ergonomics 58(8):1314–1319

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (2010). Classification of Urgency of Caesarean Section. Good Practice no 11

  9. Healey AN, Sevdalis N, Vincent CA (2006) Measuring intraoperative interference from distraction and interruption observed in the operating theatre. Ergonomics 49:589–604

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Sevdalis N, Arora S, Undre S, Vincent C (2009) Distraction and interruptions in the operating room. In: Flin R, Mitchell L (eds) Safer surgery. Analysing behaviour in the operating theatre, chapter 24. Ashgate Publishing Ltd, Farnham, pp 205–243

    Google Scholar 

  11. Campbell G, Arfanis K, Smith AF (2012) Distractions and interruptions in anaesthetic practice. Br J Anaesth 109(5):707–715

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Avidan A, Yacobi G, Weissman C, Levin P (2017) Cell phone calls in the operating theater and staff distractions. J Patient Saf. https://doi.org/10.1097/pts.0000000000000351 (Epub ahead of print)

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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(1):196–201

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. US Aviation and Action Safety Program (2013). Accident and incident data. US FAR part 121, 542

  15. Cooper JB, Newbower RS, Long CD, McPeek B (1978) Preventable anaesthesia mishaps: a study of human factors. Anesthesiology 49:399–406

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Murthy VSSN, Malhotra SK, Bala I, Raghunathan M (1995) Detrimental effects of noise on anaesthetists. Can J Anesth 42:608–611

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Tavares Pereira B, Tavares Pereira A, Santos Correia C, Marttos AC Jr, Fiorelli RKA, Fraga GP (2011) Interruptions and distractions in the trauma operating room: understanding the threat of human error. Rev Col Bras Cir 38(5):292–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ang WW, Sabharwal S, Johannsson H, Bhattacharya R, Gupte CM (2016) The cost of trauma operating theatre inefficiency. Ann Med Surg 7:4–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Labor Ward theatre staff of North Middlesex University Hospital for their help and support for the duration of data collection by the five observers.

Funding

The authors did not receive any financial support for this study.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. UCL School of Medicine, London, UK

    Matthew Willett, Orla Gillman, Emma Sewart & Daniel Muller

  2. St George’s International School of Medicine, Grenada, Grenada

    Esther Shin

  3. Camden Health Improvement Practice, London, UK

    Maud Nauta

  4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, North Middlesex University Hospital, London, UK

    Wai Yoong

Authors
  1. Matthew Willett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Orla Gillman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Esther Shin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Emma Sewart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Daniel Muller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Maud Nauta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Wai Yoong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

WM: data collection, data analysis, and manuscript writing/editing. GO: data collection and data analysis. SE: data collection. SE: data collection. MD: data collection. NM: manuscript writing/editing. YW: protocol/project development, data analysis, and manuscript writing/editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wai Yoong.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Matthew Willett has no conflict of interest; Orla Gillman has no conflict of interest; Ester Shin has no conflict of interest; Daniel Muller has no conflict of interest; Maud Nauta has no conflict of interest; and Wai Yoong has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This was a purely observational study and no additional procedures were performed on the study subjects. The study was originally intended as a quality improvement project to reduce the number of distractions during Cesarean Sections. The authors have discussed this study with the Chairperson of the Research and Development Committee of the hospital as well as the Quality Improvement Board and ethical approval was not required.

Informed consent

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Willett, M., Gillman, O., Shin, E. et al. The impact of distractions and interruptions during Cesarean Sections: a prospective study in a London teaching hospital. Arch Gynecol Obstet 298, 313–318 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-018-4810-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-018-4810-9

Keywords

  • Distractions
  • Interruptions
  • Cesarean Section
  • Theatre efficiency