Transforming the surgical "time-out" into a comprehensive "preparatory pause"

Quality Improvement in Congenital Heart Surgery

Congenital heart disease is a major public health concern in the United States. Outcomes of surgery for children with congenital heart disease have dramatically improved over the last several decades with current aggregate operative mortality rates approximating 3%, inclusive of all ages and defects. However, there remains significant variability among institutions, especially for higher-risk and more complex patients. As health care moves toward the quadruple aim of improving patient experience, improving the health of populations, lowering costs, and increasing satisfaction among providers, congenital heart surgery programs must evolve to meet the growing scrutiny, demands, and expectations of numerous stakeholders. Improved outcomes and reduced interinstitutional variability are achieved through prioritization of quality assurance and improvement.

The World Health Organization trauma checklist versus Trauma Team Time-out: A perspective

Time‐out protocols have reportedly improved team dynamics and patients’ safety in various clinical settings – particularly in the operating room. In 2016, the World Health Organization (WHO) introduced a Trauma Care checklist, which outlines steps to follow immediately after the primary and secondary surveys and prior to the team leaving the patient. The WHO Trauma Care checklist's main perceived benefit is the prompting of clinicians to complete trauma admissions as per evidence‐based guidelines. The WHO Trauma Care checklist, while likely to be successful in reducing errors of omission related to hospital admission, may be limited in its ability to reduce errors that occur in the initial 30 min of trauma reception – when most of the life‐saving decisions are made. To address this limitation a Trauma Team Time‐out protocol is proposed for initial trauma resuscitation, targeting the critical first 30 min of hospital reception.

Does scripting operative plans in advance lead to better preparedness of trainees? A pilot study

BACKGROUND

We pondered if preoperative scripting might better prepare residents for the operating room (OR).

METHODS

Interns rotating on a general surgeon's service were instructed to script randomized cases prior to entering the OR. Scripts contained up to 20 points highlighting patient information perceived important for surgical management. The attending was blinded to the scripting process and completed a feedback sheet (Likert scale) following each procedure. Feedback questions were categorized into "preparedness" (aware of patient specific details, etc.) and "performance" (provided better assistance, etc.).

RESULTS

Eight surgical interns completed 55 scripted and 61 non-scripted cases. Total scores were higher in scripted cases (p = 0.02). Performance scores were higher for scripted cases (3.31 versus 3.13, p = 0.007), while preparedness did not differ (3.65 and 3.62, p = 0.51).

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study suggests scripting cases may be a useful preoperative planning tool to increase interns' operative and patient care performance but may not affect perceived preparedness.

[Wrong site surgery : Incidence, risk factors and prevention]

BACKGROUND

Wrong site surgery defines a category of rare but totally preventable complications in surgery and other invasive disciplines. Such complications could be associated with severe morbidity or even death. As such complications are entirely preventable, wrong site surgery has been declared by the World Health Organization to be a "never event".

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A selective search of the PubMed database using the MeSH terms "wrong site surgery", "wrong site procedure", "wrong side surgery" and "wrong side procedure" was performed.

RESULTS

The incidence of wrong site surgery has been estimated at 1 out of 112,994 procedures; however, the number of unreported cases is estimated to be higher. Although wrong site surgery occurs in all surgical specialities, the majority of cases have been recorded in orthopedic surgery. Breakdown in communication has been identified as the primary cause of wrong site surgery. Risk factors for wrong site surgery include time pressure, emergency procedures, multiple procedures on the same patient by different surgeons and obesity. Check lists have the potential to reduce or prevent the occurrence of wrong site surgery.

CONCLUSION

The awareness that to err is human and the individual willingness to recognize and prevent errors are the prerequisites for reducing and preventing wrong site surgery.

Acute coronary artery bypass graft failure in a patient with polycythemia vera

Polycythemia vera in patients undergoing cardiac surgery is clinically rare. A 65-year-old man with polycythemia vera was admitted with effort-related chest discomfort. We planned coronary artery bypass grafting for left anterior descending artery and obtuse marginal branch stenosis, using bilateral internal thoracic arteries, with perioperative prophylactic management to avoid thromboembolism. His internal thoracic arterial grafts occluded during and after surgery due to thrombus, and ST-elevation myocardial infarction developed, which needed a percutaneous coronary intervention. This case suggests that optimal management methods should be studied further to contribute to better patient outcomes in this condition.

Improving quality through process change: a scoping review of process improvement tools in cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgery is a cornerstone of treatment for malignancy. However, significant variation has been reported in patterns and quality of cancer care for important health outcomes, including perioperative mortality. Surgical process improvement tools (SPITs) have been developed that focus on enhancing the processes of care at the point of care, as a means of quality improvement. This study describes SPITs and develops a conceptual framework by synthesizing the available literature on these novel quality improvement tools.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted based on instruments developed for quality improvement in surgery. The search was executed on electronically indexed sources (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library) from January 1990 to March 2011. Data were extracted, tabulated and reported thematically using a narrative synthesis approach. These results were used to develop a conceptual framework that describes and classifies SPITs.

RESULTS

232 articles were reviewed for data extraction and analysis. SPITs identified were classified into 3 groups: clinical mapping tools, structure communication tools and error reduction instruments. The dominant instrument reported were clinical mapping tools, including: clinical pathways (113, 48%), fast track (46, 20%) and enhanced recovery after surgery protocols (36, 15%). Outcomes reported included: length of stay (174, 75%), readmission rates (116, 50%), morbidity (116, 50%), mortality (104, 45%), and economic (60, 26%). Many gaps in the literature were recognized.

CONCLUSION

We have developed a conceptual framework of SPITs and identified gaps in current knowledge. These results will guide the design and development of new quality instruments in surgery.