Traditionally, hierarchical task analysis (HTA) in surgery examines observable disruption in a predefined set of tasks as performed, rather than examining the ergonomics requirements, which may predispose surgical teams to act erroneously. This research aims to address this gap in the literature. It develops a HTA protocol taking into consideration surgical team actions, observable external disruption, internal disruption, and ergonomic goals required for safer conducting procedures. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) is selected as a case.
This research involved observations inside operating rooms (ORs) of three large teaching hospitals in Australia and China. Two rounds of observations are conducted: observations for developing HTA, and observations after presenting the developed HTA among surgical teams. The traditional HTA format is expanded to include two additional columns: technical considerations and ergonomics considerations. Two groups are formed from the observed LRPs. LRPs in the first group were conducted with no regard to the specified ergonomic goals and associated ergonomic features, and the second are conducted with the surgical teams attempting to follow specified ergonomic goals and features as prescribed in HTA. Careful attempt is required to select procedures such that the total operative times for both groups are approximately equal (± 5%).
Between March 2016 and November 2017, a total of 29 LRPs were observed, and a HTA developed. The results reveal significant reduction (43%) in the total external disruptive events and approximately 58% reduction in the internal disruptive events in LRPs conducted with HTA requirements.
The developed HTA appears to have some utility, but needs evaluation in larger studies. It can potentially be used as a training aid, and as a checklist for evaluating surgical performance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Salvendy G (2012) Handbook of human factors and ergonomics. Wiley, New York
Carayon P (2011) Handbook of human factors and ergonomics in health care and patient safety. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Stanton NA, Hedge A, Brookhuis K, Salas E, Hendrick HW (2004) Handbook of human factors and ergonomics methods. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Rose J, Bearman C (2012) Making effective use of task analysis to identify human factors issues in new rail technology. Appl Ergon 43:614–624
Lane R, Stanton N, Harrison D (2006) Applying hierarchical task analysis to medication administration errors. Appl Ergon 37:669–679
Stanton N (2006) Hierarchical task analysis: Development, applications, and extensions. Appl Ergon 37:55–79
Phipps D, Meakin G, Beatty P, Nsoedo C, Parker D (2008) Human factor in anaesthesia practice: insights from a task analysis. Br J Anaesth 100:333–343
Joice P, Hanna GB, Cuschieri A (1998) Error enacted during endoscopic surgery: a human reliability analysis. Appl Ergon 29:409–414
Al-Hakim L, Maiping T, Sevdalis N (2014) Applying hierarchical task analysis to improving the patient positioning for direct lateral interbody fusion in spinal surgery. Appl Ergon 45:955–966
Al-Hakim L, Maiping T, Watanachote MD, Sengupta S (2015) Human error identification tool for laparoscopic surgery: motion economy perspective. Appl Ergon 50:113–125
Sarker SK, Chang A, Albrani T, Vincent C (2008) Constructing hierarchical task analysis in surgery. Surg Endosc 22:107–111
Sarker S, Hutchinson R, Chang A, Vincent C, Darzi A (2006) Self-appraisal hierarchical task analysis of expert surgeons performing laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 20:636–640
Sarker SK, Delaney C (2011) Feasibility of self-appraisal in assessing operative performance in advanced laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis 13:805–810
Peyre SE, Peyre CG, Hagen JA, Sullivan ME, Lipham JC, DeMeester SR, Peters JH, DeMeester TR (2009) Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication assessment: task analysis as a model for the development of a procedural checklist. Surg Endosc 23:1227–1232
Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS (2000) To err is human: building a safer health system. A report of the Committee on Quality of Health Care in America, Institute of Medicine. National Academy Press, Washington, DC
Al-Hakim L, Sengupta S, Xiao J (2017) Ergonomics perspective for identifying and reducing internal operative flow disruption for laparoscopic urological surgery. Surg Endosc 31:5043–5056
Wiegmann DA, ElBardissi AW, Dearani JA, Daly RC, Sundt TM (2007) Disruptions in surgical flow and their relationship to surgical errors: an exploratory investigation. Surgery 142:658–665
Etchells E, O’Neill C, Bernstein M (2003) Patient safety in surgery: error detection and prevention. World J Surg 27:936–941
Shepherd A (2010) HTA as a framework for task analysis. Ergonomics 41:1537–1552
Al-Hakim L (2011) The impact of preventable disruption on the operative time for minimally invasive surgery. Surg Endosc 25:3385–3392
Vereczkei A, Feussner H, Negele T, Fritzsche F, Seitz T, Bubb H, Horvath OP (2004) Ergonomic assessment of the static stress confronted by surgeons during laparoscopic cholechstectomy. Surg Endosc 18:1118–1122
Sevdalis N, Wong HW, Arora S, Nagpal K, Healey A, Hanna GB, Vincent CA (2012) Quantitative analysis of intraoperative communication in open and laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 26:2931–2938
Annett J, Cunningham D, MathiasJones P (2000) A method for measuring team skills. Ergonomics 43:1076–1094
Acton SA, Reinach SJ (2003) Hierarchical task analysis for teams: devleoping a method to charcterize railroad yard switching. In: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Meeting
Berguer R (1999) Surgery and ergonomics. Arch Surg 134:1011–1016
Ronstrom C, Hallbeck S, Lowndes B, Chrouser KL (2018) Surgical ergonomics. Surgeons as educators. Springer, New York, pp 387–417
van Veelen MA, Kazemier G, Koopman J, Goossens RH, Meijer DW (2002) Assessment of the ergonomically optimal operating surface height for laparoscopic surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 12:47–52
Luttmann A, Jäger M, Sökeland J (2009) Ergonomic assessment of the posture of surgeons performing endoscopic transurethral resections in urology. J Occup Med Toxicol 4::26
Barnes RM (1998) Motion and time study design and measurement of works. Chapman and Hall, London
Rosner B, Glynn RJ, Lee ML (2006) The Wilcoxon signed rank test for paired comparisons of clustered data. Biometrics 62:185–192
Gwet KL (2014) Handbook of inter-rater reliability: the definitive guide to measuring the extent of agreement among raters. Advanced Analytics, LLC, Montgomery Village
Hair JF Jr, Wolfinbarger M, Money AH, Samouel P, Page MJ (2015) Essentials of business research methods. Routledge, New York
Wauben LS, van Veelen MA, Gossot D, Gossens RH (2006) Application of ergonomics guidelines during minimally invasive surgery: a questionnaire survey of 284 surgeons. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 20(8):1268–1274
Bove P, Lacovelli V (2011) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. In: Meinhold-Heerlein I (ed) Laparoscopy: an interdisciplinary approach. InTech, Coroatia, pp 21–44
Chen WM, Cheng CL, Ou YC, Yang CK, Chen CS (2010) New use of Foley catheter for exposing the urethral stump during vesicourethral anastomosis in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urology 76:1109–1110
Van Velthoven RF, Ahlering TE, Peltier A, Skarecky DW, Clayman RV (2003) Technique for laparoscopic running urethrovesical anastomosis: the single knot method. Urology 61:699–702
Thomas MJ, Petrilli RM (2006) Crew familiarity: operational experience, non-technical performance, and error management. Aviat Space Environ Med 77:41
Al-Hakim L, Arora S, Sevdalis N (2016) Impact of disruptions on anaesthetic workflow during anaesthesia induction and patient positioning. Eur J Anaesthesiol 33:581–587
Kao L, Thomas E (2008) Navigating towards improved surgical safety using aviation-based strategies. J Surg Res 145:327–335
van Det MJ, Meijerink WJ, Hoff C, Totte ER, Pierie JP (2009) Optimal ergonomics for laparoscopic surgery in minimally inasive surgery suites: a review and guidelines. Surg Endosc 23:1279–1285
Persoon MC, Broos HJ, Witjes JA, Hendrikx AJ, Scherpbier AJ (2011) The effect of distractions in the operating room during endourological procedures. Surg Endosc 25:437–443
Al-Hakim L, Sevdalis N, Arora S et al (2012) On surgical disruption rating, expected operation time or actual wasted time—some comments on Gillepsie. BMJ Quality Safety 21::532
We would like to acknowledge the support of Professor Xiaoying Zhou, Deputy President, and Ms Mingli Yang, Director of International Affair Office at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China. The authors appreciate the work of Mr Todd Manning, Department of Anatomy and Developmental Biology, Monash University, Australia, for editing the first draft of the manuscript. The authors would like to acknowledge the effort of Mr. Kapil Sethi, Urological Surgical Fellow at the Austin Hospital, Melbourne Australia, for organising several observations.
The authors Latif Al-Hakim, Ming Wang, Jiaquan Xiao, Dennis Gyomber, and Shomik Sengupta have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
About this article
Cite this article
Al-Hakim, L., Wang, M., Xiao, J. et al. Hierarchical task analysis for identification of interrelationships between ergonomic, external disruption, and internal disruption in complex laparoscopic procedures. Surg Endosc 33, 3673–3687 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-06656-z
- Ergonomic requirements
- Hierarchical task analysis
- Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy
- Performance appraisal, training aid