Abstract
The majority of surgical adverse events may be traced to the operating room (OR). However, traditional surgical health services research approaches are limited in their ability to assess what is happening in the OR. In this chapter, we present an overview of point-of-care research, including strategies for data collection and analysis. Seminal papers in the field of intraoperative research are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Kohn LT, Corrigan J, Donaldson MS. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2000.
Goodman JC, Villarreal P, Jones B. The social cost of adverse medical events, and what we can do about it. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30:590–5.
Gawande AA, Thomas EJ, Zinner MJ, Brennan TA. The incidence and nature of surgical adverse events in Colorado and Utah in 1992. Surgery. 1999;126:66–75.
Leape LL, Brennan TA, Laird N, et al. The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard medical practice study II. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:377–84.
Thomas EJ, Studdert DM, Burstin HR, et al. Incidence and types of adverse events and negligent care in Utah and Colorado. Med Care. 2000;38:261–71.
Rogers SO Jr, Gawande AA, Kwaan M, et al. Analysis of surgical errors in closed malpractice claims at 4 liability insurers. Surgery. 2006;140:25–33.
Vincent C, Moorthy K, Sarker SK, Chang A, Darzi AW. Systems approaches to surgical quality and safety: from concept to measurement. Ann Surg. 2004;239:475–82.
What is Ergonomics? (Accessed 17 Jan 2019, at https://www.iea.cc/whats/index.html.)
Reason J. Human error: models and management. BMJ. 2000;320:768–70.
Donabedian A. The quality of care. How can it be assessed? JAMA. 1988;260:1743–8.
Holden RJ, Carayon P, Gurses AP, et al. SEIPS 2.0: a human factors framework for studying and improving the work of healthcare professionals and patients. Ergonomics. 2013;56:1669–86.
Makary MA, Sexton JB, Freischlag JA, et al. Operating room teamwork among physicians and nurses: teamwork in the eye of the beholder. J Am Coll Surg. 2006;202:746–52.
Lingard L, Regehr G, Espin S, Whyte S. A theory-based instrument to evaluate team communication in the operating room: balancing measurement authenticity and reliability. Qual Saf Health Care. 2006;15:422–6.
Mishra A, Catchpole K, McCulloch P. The Oxford NOTECHS system: reliability and validity of a tool for measuring teamwork behaviour in the operating theatre. Qual Saf Health Care. 2009;18:104–8.
Hull L, Arora S, Kassab E, Kneebone R, Sevdalis N. Observational teamwork assessment for surgery: content validation and tool refinement. J Am Coll Surg. 2011;212:234–43. e1–5
Sevdalis N, Forrest D, Undre S, Darzi A, Vincent C. Annoyances, disruptions, and interruptions in surgery: the disruptions in surgery index (DiSI). World J Surg. 2008;32:1643–50.
Onwuegbuzie AJ, Collins KMT. A typology of mixed methods sampling designs in social science research. Qual Rep. 2007;12:281–316.
Hu YY, Arriaga AF, Roth EM, et al. Protecting patients from an unsafe system: the etiology and recovery of intraoperative deviations in care. Ann Surg. 2012;256:203–10.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hu, YY., Greenberg, C.C. (2020). Studying What Happens in the Operating Room. In: Dimick, J., Lubitz, C. (eds) Health Services Research. Success in Academic Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28357-5_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28357-5_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-28356-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-28357-5
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)