The Human Factor and Safety Attitudes in Neurosurgical Operating Rooms

Time-Out and Its Role in Neurosurgery

BACKGROUND

Safety checklists have improved surgical outcomes; however, much of the literature comes from general surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To identify the role of time-outs in neurosurgery, understand neurosurgeons' attitudes toward time-out, and highlight areas for improvement.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study using a 15-item survey to evaluate how time-outs were performed across 5 hospitals affiliated with a single neurosurgery training program.

RESULTS

Surveys were sent to 51 neurosurgical faculty, fellows, and residents across 5 hospitals with a 72.5% response rate. At all hospitals, surgeons, anesthesiologists, registered nurses, and circulators were involved in time-outs. Although all required time-out before incision, there was no consensus regarding the precise timing of time-out, in policy or in practice. Overall, respondents believed the existing time-out was adequate for neurosurgical procedures (H1: 17, 65.4%; H2: 19, 86.4%; H3: 14, 70.0%; H4: 20, 80.0%; and H5: 18, 78.3%). Of the respondents, 97.2% believed time-out made surgery safe, 94.6% agreed that time-outs reduce the risk of wrong-side or wrong-level neurosurgery, and 17 (45.9%) saw a role for a neurosurgery-specific safety checklist. Pragmatic challenges (n = 20, 54.1%) and individual beliefs and attitudes (n = 20, 54.1%) were common barriers to implementation of standardized time-outs.

CONCLUSION

Multidisciplinary time-outs have become standard of care in neurosurgery. Despite proximity and overlapping personnel, there is considerable variability between hospitals in the practice of time-outs. This lack of uniformity, allowed for by flexible World Health Organization guidelines, may reflect the origins of surgical time-outs in general surgery, rather than neurosurgery, underscoring the potential for time-out optimization with neurosurgery-specific considerations.

Teamwork and Safety Attitudes in Complex Aortic Surgery at a Dutch Hospital: Cross-Sectional Survey Study

BACKGROUND

Improving teamwork in surgery is a complex goal and difficult to achieve. Human factors questionnaires, such as the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ), can help us understand medical teamwork and may assist in achieving this goal.

OBJECTIVE

This paper aimed to assess local team and safety culture in a cardiovascular surgery setting to understand how purposeful teamwork improvements can be reached.

METHODS

Two cardiovascular surgical teams performing complex aortic treatments were assessed: an endovascular-treatment team (ETT) and an open-treatment team (OTT). Both teams answered an online version of the SAQ Dutch Edition (SAQ-NL) consisting of 30 questions related to six different domains of safety: teamwork climate, safety climate, job satisfaction, stress recognition, perceptions of management, and working conditions. In addition, one open-ended question was posed to gain more insight into the completed questionnaires.

RESULTS

The SAQ-NL was completed by all 23 ETT members and all 13 OTT members. Team composition was comparable for both teams: 57% and 62% males, respectively, and 48% and 54% physicians, respectively. All participants worked for 10 years or more in health care. SAQ-NL mean scores were comparable between both teams, with important differences found between the physicians and nonphysicians of the ETT. Nonphysicians were less positive about the safety climate, job satisfaction, and working climate domains than were the physicians (P<.05). Additional education on performed procedures, more conjoined team training, as well as a hybrid operating room were suggested by participants as important areas of improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Nonphysicians of a local team performing complex endovascular aortic aneurysm surgery perceived safety climate, job satisfaction, and working conditions less positively than did physicians from the same team. Open-ended questions suggested that this is related to a lack of adequate conjoined training, lack of adequate education, and lack of an adequate operating room. With added open-ended questions, the SAQ-NL appears to be an assessment tool that allows for developing strategies that are instrumental in improving quality of care.

The Surgical Hazardous Attitudes Reflection Profile (SHARP) Instrument - A Prototype Study

OBJECTIVE

There is growing recognition that surgeons' non-technical skills are crucial in guaranteeing optimal quality and safety of patient care. However, insight in relevant attitudes underlying these behavioral skills is lacking. Hazardous attitudes potentially cause risky behavior, which can result in medical errors and adverse events. A questionnaire offering surgeons insight in their attitudinal profile is still missing and would be instrumental in risk reduction. Therefore, the aim of this study is to develop a prototype of a reliable and valid instrument to measure hazardous attitudes among surgeons.

DESIGN

To measure hazardous attitudes, a prototype of the Surgical Hazardous Attitudes Reflection Profile (SHARP) tool was designed using a mixed methods approach, consisting of (1) 2 focus group discussions, (2) a modified Delphi analysis, and (3) a survey followed by (4) statistical analysis of the psychometric properties. Statistical analysis included exploratory factor analysis with varimax rotation, calculation of internal consistency reliability coefficients, and interscale correlations.

SETTING

Fourteen hospitals across the Netherlands were recruited to guarantee demographic variety and the inclusion of academic, tertiary, and general hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Nineteen experts participated in the 2 focus groups, and 19 in the modified Delphi study. In total, 302 surgeons (54.1%) completed the SHARP.

RESULTS

In total, 302 surgeons (54.1%) completed the SHARP. Exploratory factor analysis resulted in 6 subscales measuring attitude towards (1) authority (α = 0.78), (2) self-performance (α = 0.69), (3) performance feedback (α = 0.61), (4) own fitness to perform (α = 0.54), (5) uncertainty (α = 0.51), and (6) planned procedures (α = 0.48).

CONCLUSIONS

This study resulted in a prototype instrument identifying 6 potential hazardous attitudes in surgeons. Attitudes towards "authority" and "self-performance" can now be validly and reliably measured. Further research is required to optimize the prototype version of the instrument and could usefully explore the plausible relations between hazardous attitudes and clinical outcomes.

Guideline Implementation: Team Communication: 1.8 www.aornjournal.org/content/cme

The perioperative environment is fast paced and complex. Competing responsibilities, noise and distractions, and reluctance of team members to speak up when they are aware of a potential patient safety issue are all barriers to effective communication in the perioperative setting. Communication breakdowns among health care providers can lead to medical errors and patient harm. Accurate and complete communication about the patient and the patient's care can contribute to improved efficiency, better patient outcomes, and fewer adverse events. The new AORN "Guideline for team communication" provides guidance on using standardized processes and tools to improve the quality of team communication. The key points address hand overs between phases of perioperative care; a briefing to share the surgical plan; a time out to verify the correct patient, procedure, site, and side; and a debriefing to discuss what was learned and how to improve. Perioperative RNs should review the complete guideline for additional information and for guidance when writing and updating policies and procedures.