Methods to Characterize Operating Room Variables in Robotic Surgery to Enhance Patient Safety

  • Anthony M. Composto
  • Luke A. Reisner
  • Abhilash K. Pandya
  • David A. Edelman
  • Katrina L. Jacobs
  • Tandi M. BagianEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 482)


Surgical team experience is an important determinant of operative outcome. However, even the most experienced team will not be familiar with all potential variability that could be encountered during a surgical procedure. Robotic surgery adds further complexity through advanced technology, additional equipment, intricate process steps, etc. One method that is crucial to understanding a robotic procedure is surgical observation, which can be used to identify the process flow and involved objects. Another method is task excursion analysis, a proactive approach to understanding system variability and key factors that may affect system performance and patient safety. Finally, a method must be used to efficiently present the gathered information to surgical teams. As rapidly evolving technology is introduced into health care systems, the adoption of these types of methods is necessary to ensure patient safety. This paper describes the proposed methodology for analyzing robotic surgery variability and provides some example data.


Task analysis Robotic surgery Patient safety Clinical teams Veterans health administration Best practices 


  1. 1.
    Yu, H.Y., et al.: Hospital volume, utilization, costs and outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J. Urol. 187(5), 1632–1637 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chang, S.L., et al.: The impact of robotic surgery on the surgical management of prostate cancer in the USA. BJU Int. 115(6), 929–936 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Martino, M.A., et al.: A comparison of quality outcome measures in patients having a hysterectomy for benign disease: robotic versus non-robotic approaches. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 21(3), 389–393 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Subramaniam, A., et al.: A cohort study evaluating robotic versus laparotomy surgical outcomes of obese women with endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol. Oncol. 122(3), 604–607 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fuller, H.J., Bagian, T.M..: Task excursion analysis: matching the tool to the user, environment, and task. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care. SAGE Publications, UK (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Burt, B.M., et al.: Influence of experience and the surgical learning curve on long-term patient outcomes in cardiac surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 150(5), 1061–1067, 1068 e1–e3 (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grillone, G.A., Jalisi, S.: Robotic surgery of the head and neck: a comprehensive guide. Springer, New York. 160 pages (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bagian, T.M., Jacobs, K., Pandya, A.: Proactively investigating “Limits of use” with medical device manufacturers—an example case: robotic surgery. Procedia Manufacturing 3, 269–271 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    US Department of Health and Human Services, F.D.A.: Applying human factors and usability engineering to medical devices. Center for Device and Radiological Health, Office of Device Evaluation (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reason, J.: Safety in the operating theatre—part 2: human error and organisational failure. Qual Saf Health Care 14(1), 56–60 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Helmreich, R.L.: On error management: lessons from aviation. BMJ 320(7237), 781–785 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    DeRosier, J., et al.: Using health care failure mode and effect analysis: the VA National center for patient safety’s prospective risk analysis system. Joint Commission J. Qual. Patient Safety 28(5), 248–267 (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anthony M. Composto
    • 1
  • Luke A. Reisner
    • 1
  • Abhilash K. Pandya
    • 1
  • David A. Edelman
    • 2
  • Katrina L. Jacobs
    • 3
  • Tandi M. Bagian
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringWayne State UniversityDetroitUSA
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryWayne State UniversityDetroitUSA
  3. 3.National Center for Patient Safety, U.S. Department of Veterans AffairsAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations