Advertisement

Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) for Surgery: A Modified HEART Application to Robotic Surgery

  • Paolo TruccoEmail author
  • Rossella Onofrio
  • Antonio Galfano
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 482)

Abstract

HRA studies in healthcare highlight that PSF (or Influencing Factors—IFs) taxonomies in HRA techniques have been developed and validated in industrial contexts, and as such are not fully applicable to healthcare contexts. In this paper, a modified version of Human Error Assessment and Reduction Technique (HEART), has been developed and tested through an application to the robotic surgical Radical Prostatectomy procedure. Personal and organizational factors were modeled and assessed through an IFs taxonomy validated in the surgical domain, and then systematically translated into the corresponding Error Producing Conditions (EPCs), typical of the HEART method. The results confirmed the importance of adapting HRA methods to the healthcare sector, and added detailed information on what are the most relevant factors that should be captured by an HRA method when applied to surgery. Additionally, the analysis revealed that team related factors have the highest influence on surgeons’ performance (i.e. increase of Human Unreliability Rate) in the context of different surgical tasks.

Keywords

Human reliability analysis HRA Surgery Influencing factors 

References

  1. 1.
    Cagliano, A.C., Grimaldi, S., Rafele, C.: A systemic methodology for risk management in healthcare sector. Safety Sci. Elsevier Ltd. 49(5), 695–708 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lyons, M.: Towards a framework to select techniques for error prediction: supporting novice users in the healthcare sector. Appl. Ergon. Elsevier Ltd. 40(3), 379–395 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lyons, M., Adams, S., Woloshynowych, M., Vincent, C.: Human reliability analysis in healthcare: A review of techniques. Int. J. Risk Safety Med. 16(4), 223–237 (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Verbano, C., Turra, F.: A human factors and reliability approach to clinical risk management: evidence from Italian cases. Saf. Sci. 48(5), 625–639 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chadwick, L., Fallon, E.F.: Human reliability assessment of a critical nursing task in a radiotherapy treatment process. Appl. Ergon. 43(1), 89–97 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cuschieri, A.: Human reliability assessment in surgery—a new approach for improving surgical performance and clinical outcome. Annals of the Royal College of surgeons of England, pp. 83–87 (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cuschieri, A., Tang, B.: Human reliability analysis (HRA) techniques and observational clinical HRA. Minim. Invasive Ther. Allied Technol. Mitat Official J. Soc. Minim. Invasive Ther. 19(1), 12–17 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Malik, R., White, P.S., Macewen, C.J.: Using human reliability analysis to detect surgical error in endoscopic DCR surgery. Clin. Otolaryngol. Allied Sci. 28(5), 456–460 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Miskovic, D., Ni, M., Wyles, S.M., Kennedy, R.H., Francis, N.K., Parvaiz, A., Cunningham, C., et al.: Is competency assessment at the specialist level achievable? A study for the national training programme in laparoscopic colorectal surgery in England. Ann. Surg. 257(3), 476–482 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boring, R.L.: How many performance shaping factors are necessary for human reliability analysis? (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fallon, E.F., Chadwick, L., Van Der Putten, W.J.: An analysis of the impact of trends in automation on roles in radiotherapy using function allocation. Human Factors 3(Ahfe), 234–241 (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ward, J., Teng, Y., Horberry, T., Clarkson, P.J.: Healthcare human reliability analysis—by heart, Vol. 38, pp. 287–288 (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Williams, J.C.: HEART—a proposed method for assessing and reducing hu-man error. In: 9th Advances in Reliability Technology Symposium. University of Bradford (1986)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Al Naami, M., Anjum, M.N., Aldohayan, A., Al-Khayal, K., Alkharji, H.: Robotic general surgery experience: a gradual progress from simple to more complex procedures. Int. J. Med. Robot. Comput. Assist. Surg. 9(4), 486–491 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Galfano, A., Ascione, A., Grimaldi, S., Petralia, G., Strada, E., Bocciardi, A.M.: A new anatomic approach for robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: a feasibility study for completely intrafascial surgery. Eur. Urol. Eur. Assoc. Urol. 58(3), 457–461 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Galfano, A., Di Trapani, D., Sozzi, F., Strada, E., Petralia, G., Bramerio, M., Ascione, A., et al.: Beyond the learning curve of the Retzius-sparing approach for robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Oncologic and functional results of the first 200 patients with ≥1 year of follow-up. Euro. Urol. Euro. Assoc. Urol. 64(6), 974–980 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Onofrio, R., Trucco, P., Torchio, A.: Towards a taxonomy of influencing factors for human reliability analysis (HRA) applications in surgery. Procedia Manuf. 3, 144–151 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paolo Trucco
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rossella Onofrio
    • 1
  • Antonio Galfano
    • 2
  1. 1.Politecnico di MilanoMilanItaly
  2. 2.Ospedale Niguarda Ca’ GrandaMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations