Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A phased approach to implementing radio frequency identification technologies within the perioperative process

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Health and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As a technology solution, radio frequency identification (RFID) has proven increased efficiency and accuracy within traditional production and inventory control environments. Likewise, RFID also offers increased transparency, accountability, and quality across the healthcare industry. Specifically, this paper provides an a priori perspective to implementing RFID applications in the hospital environment within the perioperative process. The paper describes, examines, and discusses the opportunities and challenges that RFID technologies pose to an individual hospital’s perioperative process and supporting auxiliary services. Based on an 87-month longitudinal study of a large 909 registered-bed teaching hospital, this paper investigates the complexity of technological change dynamics, integrated information systems, as well as the benefits and learning curves associated with implementing RFID technology in a hospital’s perioperative process. This paper also provides theoretical and practical implications, as well as study limitations.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ashford P. Traceability. Int J Bank Eng Transplant Cells Tissues Inc Adv Tissue Bank. 2010;11(4):329–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bottles K. April 2012. Is your hospital ready for radical transparency. Hospital Impact, available online via http://www.hospitalimpact.org/index.php/2012/04/04/is_your_hospital_ready_for_radical_trans, accessed February 2013, 3.

  3. Brubaker S, Wilson D. Coding and traceability: cells and tissues in North America. Int J Bank Eng Transplant Cells Tissues Inc Adv Tissue Bank. 2010;11(4):379–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Catalano K, Fickenscher K. Emerging technologies in the OR and their effect on perioperative professionals. AORN J. 2007;86(6):958–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chang S, Ou C, Ku C, Yang M. A study of RFID application impacts on medical safety. Int J Electron Healthc. 2008;4(1):1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dougherty D, Conway P. The 3Ts road map to transform US health care. JAMA. 2008;299(19):2319–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Egan M, Sandberg W. Auto identification technology and its impact on patient safety in the operating room of the future. Surg Innov. 2007;14(1):41–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Eisenhardt K. Building theories from case study research. Acad Manag Rev. 1989;14(4):532–50.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fairbanks C. Using Six Sigma and lean methodologies to improve OR throughput. AORN J. 2007;86(1):73–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fowler P, Craig J, Fredendall L, Damali U. Perioperative workflow: barriers to efficiency, risks, and satisfaction. AORN J. 2008;87(1):187–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gawande A, Studdert D, Orav E, Brennan T, Zinner M. Risk factors for retained instruments and sponges after surgery. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:229–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gibbs V, McGrath M, Russell T. The prevention of retained foreign bodies after surgery. Bull Am Coll Surg. 2005;90(10):12–4. and 56.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gunn M. Standardized perioperative record: a bold step forward. AORN J. 2008;88(S2):S66–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ku H, Wang P, Su M, Liu C. Application of radio-frequency identification in perioperative care. AORN J. 2011;94(2):158–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Macario A, Vitez T, Dunn B, McDonald T. Analysis of hospital costs and charges for inpatient surgical care. Anesthesiology. 1995;83(6):1138–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Marjamaa R, Vakkuri A, Kirvela O. Operating room management: why, how and by whom? Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2008;52:596–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. McClusker J, Dendukuri N, Cardinal L, Katofsky L, Riccardi M. Assessment of the work environment of multidisciplinary hospital staff. Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2005;18(7):543–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mouhsine E, Halkic N, Garofalo R, Taylor S, Theumann N, Guillou L, et al. Soft-tissue textiloma: a potential diagnostic pitfall. Can J Surg. 2005;48:495–6.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Nagy P, George I, Bernstein W, Caban J, Klein R, Mezrich R, et al. Radio frequency identification systems technology in the surgical setting. Surg Innov. 2006;13(1):61–7.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Nicodemus, A. August 22, 2009. St. Vincent tracking surgical sponges: Chipping away at mistakes. Telegram & Gazette, Worcester: Massachusetts, available online via http://www.telegram.com, accessed February 2012, 1.

  21. Peters J, Blasco T. Enhancing hospital performance through perioperative services. Physician Exec. 2004;30(6):26–31.

    Google Scholar 

  22. PwC Health Research Institute. (February 2012). The future of the academic medical center: Strategies to avoid a meltdown. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, available online 2/01/2013 via http://www.pwc.com/us/en/health-industries/publications/the-future-of-academic-medical-centers.jhtml#, accessed February 2013, 44.

  23. RFID in Healthcare Consortium. September 2008. Webpage available online via http://www.rfidinhealthcare.org, accessed February 2012.

  24. Roeder J. The electronic medical record in the surgical setting. AORN J. 2009;89(4):667–86.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Runy, L. August 2007. Is that product safe? How to guarantee the integrity of medical supplies and tell staff about recalls. Hospitals & Health Networks Magazine, available online via http://www.hhnmag.com, accessed February 2012, 5.

  26. Seifert P. Checklists and safety improvements. AORN J. 2009;89(4):653–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Smith C. December 7, 2001. Surgical tools left in five patients. Seattle Post, available online via http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/49883_error08.shtml, accessed February 2012.

  28. Social Security Advisory Board. September 2009. The unsustainable cost of health care. available online via http://www.ssab.gov/documents/TheUnsustainableCostofHealthCare_508.pdf, accessed February 2013.

  29. Stark, K. & Goldstein, J. February 1, 2004. When surgical instruments are left behind–in patients. Philadelphia Inquirer, available online via http://www.saynotocaps.org/newsarticles/When%20surgical%20instruments%20are%20left%20behind%20-%20in%20patients.htm, accessed on February 2012, 60.

  30. Stawicki S, Seamon M, Martin N, Cipolla J, Gracias V, Lombardo G, et al. Retained surgical foreign bodies: a synopsis. OPUS 12 Sci. 2008;2(2):1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Stawicki S, Evans D, Cipolla J, Seamon M, Lukaszczyk J, Prosciak M, et al. Retained surgical foreign bodies: a comprehensive review of risks and preventive strategies. Scand J Surg. 2009;98:8–17.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Steelman VM. Sensitivity of detection of radiofrequency surgical sponges: a prospective, cross-over study. Am J Surg. 2011;201(2):233–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Strong M, von Versen R. Coding and traceability for products of human origin. Int J Bank Eng Transplant Cells Tissues Inc Adv Tissue Bank. 2010;11(4):325–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Tsikitas, I. October 8, 2010. Study: Radio frequency detection reduces retained sponge risk. Outpatient Surgery News, available online via http://www.outpatientsurgery.net/news/2010/10/6-study-radio-frequency-detection-reduces-retained-sponge-risk, accessed February 2012, 1.

  35. Wears R, Berg M. Computer technology and clinical work: still waiting for Godot. JAMA. 2005;293(10):1261–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Weber R. The rhetoric of positivism versus interpretivism: a personal view. MIS Q. 2004;28(1):iii–xii.

    Google Scholar 

  37. World Health Organization. January 2009. WHO Surgical Safety Checklist. available online via http://www.who.int/patientsafety/safesurgery/en, accessed February 2012.

  38. Yin RK. Case study research: Design and methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Incorporated; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors of this paper would like to thank all participants involved with the study for their time, feedback and support. This work was funded by the Department of Employment and Learning Northern Ireland.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sorrell College of Business, Troy University, 116 Adams Building, One University Place, Phenix City, AL, 36869, USA

    Jim Ryan & Carmen Lewis

  2. University of Alabama-Birmingham Hospital, Birmingham, USA

    Barbara Doster, Sandra Daily & Rosemary Glass

Authors
  1. Jim Ryan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carmen Lewis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Barbara Doster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sandra Daily
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rosemary Glass
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jim Ryan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ryan, J., Lewis, C., Doster, B. et al. A phased approach to implementing radio frequency identification technologies within the perioperative process. Health Technol. 3, 73–84 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-013-0054-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-013-0054-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation