Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Development and implementation results of an interactive computerized surgical checklist for robotic-assisted gynecologic surgery

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To address surgical complications, the World Health Organization (WHO) developed the Safe Surgery Saves Lives Checklist. With the foundation of the WHO’s checklist, a robotic-specific checklist (RORCC) was developed using standardized content and face validity methods. The RORCC was implemented in a high volume gynecological (GYN) specialty group using minimally invasive robotic-assisted surgery. Data were abstracted from patients undergoing GYN procedures from four GYN surgeons at an urban, community hospital during November 16, 2010 to May 15, 2011 (pre-RORCC) n = 89 and from the period May 16, 2011 to November 16 2011 (post-RORCC) n = 121. Thirty-day readmissions pre-checklist and post-checklist were 12 and 5, respectively, which is a significant (p = 0.02) reduction. The duration of surgery was not significantly affected (p = 0.40) with pre-RORCC surgery time at 110.1 (35.7) min versus post-RORCC surgery time at 112.9 (37.4) min. This study demonstrated the feasibility of integrating an electronic, interactive, and robotic-specific checklist for gynecologic robotic-assisted surgery which resulted in a significant reduction in readmissions at the 30-day without significantly impacting operating room times.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Weiser TG, Regenbogen SE, Thompson KD et al (2008) Estimation of the global volume of surgery: a modeling strategy based on available data. Lancet 372(9633):139–144

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Tanner L (2013) Associated Press FDA takes fresh look at robotic surgery—the high-tech helper da Vinci is under scrutiny after reports of problems. 2:27 p.m. EDT April 9, 2013. Retrieved February 2, 2014. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/09/robot-surgery-fda/2067629/

  3. PR Newsire Surgical robots market shares, strategies, trends and forecasts, worldwide, 2013–2019: New Market Research Report on Market Research Reports.Biz. Retrieved February 1, 2014. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/surgical-robots-market-shares-strategies-trends-and-forecasts-worldwide-2013-to-2019-new-market-research-report-on-marketresearchreportsbiz-226880051.html

  4. Haynes AB, Weiser TG, Berry WR et al (2009) A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. N Engl J Med 360(5):491–499. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa0810119

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. The World Health Organization. implementation manual. WHO surgical safety checklist 2009. Safe surgery saves lives. ISBN 978 92 4 159859 0

  6. Angle JF, Nemcek AA Jr, Cohen AM, Miller DL, Grassi CJ, D’Agostino HR, Khan AA, Kundu S, Osnis RB, Rajan DK, Schwartzberg MS, Swan TL, Vedantham S, Wallace MJ, Cardella JF (2009) SIR standards division quality improvement guidelines for preventing wrong site, wrong procedure, and wrong person errors of the joint commission “universal protocol for preventing wrong site, wrong procedure, wrong person surgery” to the practice of interventional radiology. J Vasc Interv Radiol 20(7 Suppl):S256–S262

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kirkpatrick DH, Burkman RT (2010) Does standardization of care through clinical guidelines improve outcomes and reduce medical liability? Obstet Gynecol 116:1022–1026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Readmissions Reduction Program. Retrieved February 14, 2014. http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInpatientPPS/Readmissions-Reduction-Program.html

  9. Medicare.gov Hospital Compare. The Official US Government Site for Medicare. 30-day death and readmission measures. Retrieved February 17, 2014. http://www.medicare.gov/hospitalcompare/Data/30-day-measures.html?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

  10. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved December 19, 2013. http://www.intuitivesurgical.com/products/products_faq.html

  11. Wynd CA, Schmidt B, Schaefer MA (2003) Two quantitative approaches for estimating content validity. West J Nurs Res 25:508–518

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Devon HA, Block ME, Moyle-Wright P et al (2007) A psychometric toolbox for testing validity and reliability. J Nurs Scholarsh 39(2):155–164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Katz, Mitchell H (2006) Multivariable analysis: a practical guide for clinicians, Cambridge University Press. ISBN-13 978-0521-84051-4

  14. Fudickar A, Horle K, Wiltfang J, Bein B (2012) The effect of the WHO surgical safety checklist on complication rate and communication. Dtsch Arztebl Int 109:695–701

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). http://www.acog.org/Resources%20And%20Publications/Committee%20Opinions/Committee%20on%20Patient%20Safety%20and%20Quality%20Improvement/Standardization%20of%20Practice%20to%20Improve%20Outcomes.aspx Retrieved on 8 October, 2013

  16. Mehtsun WT, Ibrahim AM, Diener-West M, Pronovost PJ, Makary MA (2013) Surgical never events in the United States. Surgery 153:364–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Pizzi L, Goldbarb N, Nash D (2001) Crew resource management and its applications in medicine. In: agency for healthcare research and quality. Making health care safer: a critical analysis of patient safety practices. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 43. Rockville (MD): AHRQ; p. 505–13

  18. Zullo MD, McCarroll ML, Mendise TM, Ferris FE, Roulette GD, Zolton J, Andrews SJ, von Gruenigen VE (2014) Safety culture in the gynecology robotics operating room. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2014.03.027

  19. Mazzocco K, Petitti DB, Fong KT, Bonacum D, Brookey J, Graham S, Lasky RE, Sexton JB (2009) Thomas Ej. Surgical team behaviors and patient outcomes. Am J Surg 197(5):678–685

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sexton B, Makary MA, Tersigni AR (2006) Teamwork in the operating room. frontline perspectives among hospitals and operating room personnel. Anesthesiology 105:877–884

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Cardinal Health Foundation and Intuitive Surgical, Inc. for grants to support this research.

Conflict of interest

Michele L. McCarroll, Melissa D. Zullo, G. Dante Roulette, Thomas M. Mendise, Edward Ferris, Jessica Zolton, Stephen J. Andrews declare that they have no conflict of interest. Vivian E. von Gruenigen, MD has received research grants from Intuitive Surgical, Inc. and Cardinal Health Foundation.

Informed Consent

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000(5).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Summa Center for Women’s Health Research, Summa Health System, 525 East Market Street, Akron, OH, 44304, USA

    Michele L. McCarroll, G. Dante Roulette, Thomas M. Mendise, Edward Ferris, Jessica Zolton, Stephen J. Andrews & Vivian E. von Gruenigen

  2. Kent State University, Kent Hall 136C, PO Box 5190, Kent, OH, 44242, USA

    Melissa D. Zullo

Authors
  1. Michele L. McCarroll
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Melissa D. Zullo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. G. Dante Roulette
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Thomas M. Mendise
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Edward Ferris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jessica Zolton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Stephen J. Andrews
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Vivian E. von Gruenigen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michele L. McCarroll.

Additional information

The authors report that they are proctors for Intuitive Surgical Inc and recipients of a competitive fellowship and research grant supported by Intuitive Surgical, Inc. No other affiliations or financial arrangements with any of the other companies were mentioned in this article or with their competitors.

This procedure was conducted at Summa Health System in Akron, OH.

ACOG, 2013 New Orleans.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McCarroll, M.L., Zullo, M.D., Dante Roulette, G. et al. Development and implementation results of an interactive computerized surgical checklist for robotic-assisted gynecologic surgery. J Robotic Surg 9, 11–18 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-014-0482-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-014-0482-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation