4.5 Article

Reducing Operating Room Turnover Time for Robotic Surgery Using a Motor Racing Pit Stop Model

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 41, 期 8, 页码 1943-1949

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-017-3936-4

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (Catchpole/Anger) [1R03EB017447]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Operating room (OR) turnover time, time taken between one patient leaving the OR and the next entering, is an important determinant of OR utilization, a key value metric for hospital administrators. Surgical robots have increased the complexity and number of tasks required during an OR turnover, resulting in highly variable OR turnover times. We sought to streamline the turnover process and decrease robotic OR turnover times and increase efficiency. Methods Direct observation of 45 pre-intervention robotic OR turnovers was performed. Following a previously successful model for handoffs, we employed concepts from motor racing pit stops, including briefings, leadership, role definition, task allocation and task sequencing. Turnover task cards for staff were developed, and card assignments were distributed for each turnover. Forty-one cases were observed post-intervention. Results Average total OR turnover time was 99.2 min (95% CI 88.0-110.3) pre-intervention and 53.2 min (95% CI 48.0-58.5) at 3 months post-intervention. Average room ready time from when the patient exited the OR until the surgical technician was ready to receive the next patient was 42.2 min (95% CI 36.7-47.7) before the intervention, which reduced to 27.2 min at 3 months (95% CI 24.7-29.7) post-intervention (p < 0.0001). Conclusions Role definition, task allocation and sequencing, combined with a visual cue for ease-of-use, create efficient, and sustainable approaches to decreasing robotic OR turnover times. Broader system changes are needed to capitalize on that result. Pit stop and other high-risk industry models may inform approaches to the management of tasks and teams.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据