The impact of distractions and interruptions during Cesarean Sections: a prospective study in a London teaching hospital
- 86 Downloads
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.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsDistractions Interruptions Cesarean Section Theatre efficiency
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.
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.
The authors did not receive any financial support for this study.
Compliance with ethical standards
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.
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 was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 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 470–442Google Scholar
- 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 249–253Google Scholar
- 8.Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (2010). Classification of Urgency of Caesarean Section. Good Practice no 11Google 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 205–243Google Scholar
- 14.US Aviation and Action Safety Program (2013). Accident and incident data. US FAR part 121, 542Google Scholar