Advertisement

Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery

, Volume 402, Issue 1, pp 187–190 | Cite as

Operating lists are created by rational algorithms and use of power. What can a social scientific view offer surgeons?

  • Carsten EngelmannEmail author
  • Gudela Grote
  • Siegfried Geyer
  • Dzifa Ametowobla
FOR DEBATE

Abstract

Purpose

Algorithms for surgical operation planning are evidence-based. However, choices sometimes have to be made between medically equal solutions e.g. for staffing of sought-after operations. Such decisions are heavily influenced by micropolitics and power. The article examines the array of highly manipulated processes around operation theatre allocation of convenient time slots or staff, which play out in various ways in all of the world’s main regional surgical cultures.

Method

Essay supported by empiric data from an ethnographic power-analysis targeted to senior executive surgeons. Operations were categorized into “Interesting” (i.e. career-promoting) and “Uninteresting” (i.e. routine) operations.

Results

Fifty nine executives responded. Only one respondent contested the categorization of operations into Interesting and Uninteresting. The two categories were staffed according to significantly different criteria (p < 0.05). These were classified as Rational (e.g. “surgical expertise”), Social (e.g. “equity”), and Political (e.g. “status”).

For Interesting operations, Rational criteria were deemed most relevant, while for the Uninteresting operations “equity” was ranked top. Moreover, we found significant differences between surgeons’ and external observers’ (experienced clerical and nursing staff) assessments of staffing decisions, the latter ranking Political motives higher. Decisions were almost exclusively negotiated among surgeons. 33% of respondents said they used subterfuges such as withholding information, incorrect duration-statements, and barter arrangements to defuse possible conflicts.

Conclusions

Operating Lists are not merely the product of rational resource optimization. This article demonstrates the methodic feasibility of academic investigation into the typically tacit micro-political mechanisms in List-making. Developing such research further may potentially concern the practice and outcome of surgery.

Keywords

Power Politics Operating lists Health IT Surgical curricula 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Staff mathematician Karin Rohwer-Menschig, Hannover Medical School (MHH), Germany, for expert advice regarding hospital SAP, Wendy Lynas, MA, Copenhagen and James Moran, PhD, University of Konstanz for inspired editing, Prof. Windeler, Sociology TU Berlin, for valuable advice.

Authors’ contributions

Carsten Engelmann and Dzifa Ametowobla contributed equally to this article.

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

No funding other than that from the generic hospital budgets was received for research or publication.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical approval/protection of human subjects

Patients or animals were not involved such as the ethical committee said it was not concerned. The institutions’ workers’ committee and the institutions legal affairs department granted permission valid for all sites (Nr. 9510, 18.7.2013). All respondents did so voluntarily, thereby declaring consent.

Supplementary material

423_2016_1516_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.7 mb)
ESM 1 Detailed methods & results of the theater list study results.pdf; 2. Original questionnaire.pdf (DOCX 1.65 mb)
423_2016_1516_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (369 kb)
ESM 2 Theatre Planning with SAP (PDF 368 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Barron EN (2013) Game theory: an introduction, vol 2. John Wiley & Sons, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Graen GB (1989) Unwritten rules for your career: the 15 secrets for fast-track success. John Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Engelmann C, Ametowobla DR (2016) Replacing stand-alone software for planning of surgical operations by enterprise system extensions. Pitfalls and perspectives for developers and clinicians. Submitted: applied clinical informatics, manuscript ID, ACI-2016-06-RA-0100/08/2016, revision pending.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fujita T, Yamazaki Y (2002) Influence of surgeon's volume on early outcome after total gastrectomy. Eur J Surg 168:535–538PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ortmann G, Windeler A, Becker A et al (1990) Computer und Macht in Organisationen: Mikropolitische Analysen. Westdeutscher Verlag, OpladenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Van Schaik CP, Fragaszy D, Perry S (2003) Local traditions in orangutans and chimpanzees: social learning and social tolerance. In: Fragaszy DM, Perry S (eds) The biology of traditions: models and evidence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 297–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dietrich R, Childress TM (2004) Group interaction in high risk environments. Gower Publishing Ltd., FarnhamGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barthes R (1983) Empire of signs. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Levi-Strauss C (2012) Tristes tropiques. Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carsten Engelmann
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gudela Grote
    • 2
  • Siegfried Geyer
    • 3
  • Dzifa Ametowobla
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Pediatric SurgeryKlinikum Brandenburg, Medizinische Hochschule Brandenburg (MHB) Theodor FontaneKlinikumGermany
  2. 2.Department of Management, Technology and EconomicsETH ZürichZürichSwitzerland
  3. 3.Medical Sociology UnitHannover Medical School (MHH)HannoverGermany
  4. 4.Institute for SociologyTechnical University (TU) BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations