A Methodological Framework for the Definition of Patient Safety Measures in Robotic Surgery: The Experience of SAFROS Project
This paper describes an innovative methodological approach developed within the SAFROS European project (Patient Safety in Robotic Surgery, FP7) that allows to identify a set of metrics for the evaluation of patient safety during the pre- and intra-operative phase of robotic interventions. This methodology enlarges the focus of the evaluation: safety is assessed not only through the analysis of features and limitations of the technological solutions involved in the execution of target surgical interventions (product safety) but also in terms of the effects of their interaction within the surgical scenario (process safety). Moreover potentialities and obstacles emerging from the introduction of such technologies into the operating room and the hospital as systems (organizational safety) are evaluated. The proposed method has been applied to the analysis of one gold standard and two benchmark procedures. The output of the analysis is a complex set of key metrics addressing safety at the above described levels. This paper reports the most relevant and interesting subset of the obtained results. The extendibility of the method to the analysis of other interventions will be verified with suitable experiments in the next future.
Keywordspatient safety robotic surgery safety metrics surgical workflow SAFROS project
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Kohn, L.T., Corrigan, J.M., Donaldson, M.S.: To err is human: building a safer health system. Institute of Medicine Report, National Academy Press, Washington, DC (2000)Google Scholar
- 3.Edington, M. (ed.): Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Institute of Medicine Report, National Academy Press, Washington, DC (2001)Google Scholar
- 4.Quality Interagency Coordination Task Force, Doing what counts for patient safety: Federal actions to reduce medical errors and their impact. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Washington, DC (2000)Google Scholar
- 9.Martinie, J.B., Smeaton, S.M.: Laparoscopic Approaches to Pancreatic Endocrine Tumors. In: Greene, F.L., Heniford, B.T. (eds.) Minimally Invasive Cancer Management, Part 3, pp. 145–157 (2010)Google Scholar
- 11.Borden Jr., L.S., Kozlowski, P.M., Porter, C.R., Corman, J.M.: Mechanical failure rate of da Vinci robotic system. Canadian Journal of Urology 14, 3499–3501 (2007)Google Scholar
- 13.Murphy, D.G., Bjartell, A., Ficarra, V., Graefen, M., Haese, A., Montironi, R., Montorsi, F., Moul, J.W., Novara, G., Sauter, G., Sulser, T., van der Poel, H.: Downsides of Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: Limitations and Complications. European Urology 57(5), 735–746 (2010), doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2009.12.021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Kaushik, D., High, R., Clark, C.J., LaGrange, C.A.: Malfunction of the da Vinci Robotic System During Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy: An International Survey. Journal of Endourology 24(4), 571–575 (2010), doi: 10.1089=end.2009.0489Google Scholar
- 17.Basili, V.R., Caldiera, G., Rombach, H.D.: The Goal Question Metric Approach. In: Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, Wiley (1994)Google Scholar
- 18.Thammarak, K., Intakosum, S.: OPI model: A methodology for development metric based on outcome oriented. In: 8th International Joint Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering, JCSSE (2011), doi:10.1109/JCSSE.2011.5930144Google Scholar
- 19.Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, Robot-assisted abdominal surgery. Comprehensive Accreditation Manual for Hospitals: The Official Handbook (CAMH) Oakbrook Terrace, IL (2002)Google Scholar
- 21.Pronovost, P.J., Berenholtz, S.M., Goeschel, C.A., et al.: High Reliability in Health Care Organizations. Serv. Res. 41(4 Pt 2), 1599–1617 (2006), doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00567.xGoogle Scholar