Surgical team: improving teamwork, a review

The anatomy of safe surgical teams: an interview-based qualitative study among members of surgical teams at tertiary referral hospitals in Norway

BACKGROUND

In spite of the global implementation of surgical safety checklists to improve patient safety, patients undergoing surgical procedures remain vulnerable to a high risk of potentially preventable complications and adverse outcomes. The present study was designed to explore the surgical teams' perceptions of patient safety culture, capture their perceptions of the risk for adverse events, and identify themes of interest for quality improvement within the surgical department.

METHODS

This qualitative study had an explorative design with an abductive approach. Individual semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted between 10/01/23 and 11/05/23. The participants were members of surgical teams (n = 17), general and orthopedic surgeons (n = 5), anesthesiologists (n = 4), nurse anesthetists (n = 4) and operating room nurses (n = 4). Middle managers recruited purposively from general and orthopedic surgical teams in two tertiary hospitals in Norway, aiming for a maximum variation due to gender, age, and years within the specialty. The data material was analyzed following Braun and Clarke's method for reflexive thematic analysis to generate patterns of meaning and develop themes and subthemes.

RESULTS

The analysis process resulted in three themes describing the participants' perceptions of patient safety culture in the surgical context: (1) individual accountability as a safety net, (2) psychological safety as a catalyst for well-being and safe performance in the operating room, and (3) the importance of proactive structures and participation in organizational learning.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provided an empirical insight into the culture of patient safety in the surgical context. The study highlighted the importance of supporting the individuals' competence, building psychological safety in the surgical team, and creating structures and culture promoting a learning organization. Quality improvement projects, including interventions based on these results, may increase patient safety culture and reduce the frequency of adverse events in the surgical context.

Intraoperative Challenges in Hand Surgery

A wide array of intraoperative issues can arise during surgery involving the hand and upper extremity. An understanding of the common pitfalls within hand surgery may help practicing hand surgeons circumvent such issues. Within this manuscript, we first identify problems with the increasingly popular technique of wide-awake local anesthesia no tourniquet (WALANT). Achieving appropriate hemostasis and anesthetic can be bothersome, especially for procedures proximal to the distal palmar crease. We discuss our local anesthetic timing and concentrations to help mitigate such issues, as well as other problems that may arise in WALANT procedures. There also lies a barrier in connecting the traumatized patient to care in the outpatient/ambulatory setting. Additionally, the polytraumatized patient increases the complexity of care coordination for not just the hand surgeon, but all surgical providers involved. The order in which multidisciplinary surgical procedures are performed is influenced by both the complexity of the patient's case as well as the institution's current protocol. All academic institutions are faced with challenges in providing optimal intraoperative education to trainees. We acknowledge that there should be a balance between the attending surgeon executing key portions of the procedure and the trainee gaining the appropriate hands-on experience. This manuscript elaborates on the issues of intraoperative education provided to residents and anecdotal methods that may help overcome such challenges. Resources within hand surgery can often be limited and become particularly problematic in the operative setting. Specific examples include but are not limited to the lack of dedicated teams, inability to obtain appropriate intraoperative imaging, access to appropriate hardware, and intraoperative complications in an ambulatory surgery center setting.

Patient safety and staff psychological safety: A mixed methods study on aspects of teamwork in the operating room

Objectives

To predict the amount of teamwork that takes place throughout a surgery, based on performing a preoperative safety standards (surgical safety checklist and surgical count) and to explore factors affecting patient safety and staff psychological safety during a surgery, based on interprofessional teamwork.

Methods

This mixed methods study included quantitative and qualitative analyses. Quantitative data included 2,184 direct observations of surgical cases with regard to the performance of safety standards during surgeries in 29 hospitals, analyzed using multivariate binary logistic regressions. Qualitative data were obtained from an analysis of 25 semi-structured interviews with operating room (OR) clinicians and risk managers, using an inductive thematic analysis approach.

Results

Analysis of the OR observations revealed that a lack of teamwork in the preoperative "sign-in" phase doubled the chances of there being a lack of teamwork during surgery [odds ratio = 1.972, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.741, 2.233, p < 0.001] and during the "time-out" phase (odds ratio = 2.142, 95% CI 1.879, 2.441, p < 0.001). Consistent presence of staff during surgery significantly increased teamwork, by 21% for physicians and 24% for nurses (p < 0.05), but staff turnover significantly decreased teamwork, by 73% for physicians (p < 0.05). Interview data indicated that patient safety and staff psychological safety are related to a perception of a collaborative team role among OR staff, with mutual commitment and effective interprofessional communication.

Conclusions

Healthcare organizations should consider the key finding of this study when trying to identify factors that affect teamwork during a surgery. Effective preoperative teamwork positively affects intraoperative teamwork, as does the presence of more clinicians participating in a surgery, with no turnover. Other factors include working in a fixed, designated team, led by a surgeon, which functions with effective interprofessional communication that promotes patient safety and staff psychological safety.

Dedicated teams to optimize quality and safety of surgery: A systematic review

Background

A dedicated operating team is defined as a surgical team consisting of the same group of people working together over time, optimally attuned in both technical and/or communicative aspects. This can be achieved through technical and/or communicative training in a team setting. A dedicated surgical team may contribute to the optimization of healthcare quality and patient safety within the perioperative period.

Method

A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the effects of a dedicated surgical team on clinical and performance outcomes. MEDLINE and Embase were searched on 23 June 2022. Both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (NRSs) were included. Primary outcomes were mortality, complications and readmissions. Secondary outcomes were costs and performance measures.

Results

Fourteen studies were included (RCTs n = 1; NRSs n = 13). Implementation of dedicated operating teams was associated with improvements in mortality, turnover time, teamwork, communication and costs. No significant differences were observed in readmission rates and length of hospital stay. Results regarding duration, glitch counts and complications of surgery were inconclusive. Limitations include study conduct and heterogeneity between studies.

Conclusions

The institution of surgical teams who followed communicative and/or technical training appeared to have beneficial effects on several clinical outcome measures. Dedicated teams provide a feasible way of improving healthcare quality and patient safety. A dose–response effect of team training was reported, but also a relapse rate, suggesting that repetitive training is of major concern to high-quality patient care. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings, due to limited level of evidence in current literature.

Prospero registration number

CRD42020145288

Perioperative Management Strategies for the COVID-19 Pandemic at a Facility in China

The spread of coronavirus disease 2019 posed a public health crisis beginning in January 2020, affecting hospitals and health care personnel worldwide and disrupting perioperative services. Organization leaders at Xijing Hospital, Xi'an, China, developed a mitigation system for the OR that involved creating a pandemic response team to identify and implement appropriate infection control practices to prevent virus transmission. The leaders addressed managing the daily surgery schedule through patient screening and a focus on the urgency and volume of procedures. They required increased use of personal protective equipment and more stringent cleaning and disinfection protocols and ensured that the physical and mental health of staff members were monitored and prioritized. This article describes how leaders implemented these enhanced processes to protect personnel from infection as they continued to provide patient care. It also describes how high-risk procedures involving patients with confirmed or suspected infections were managed and discusses lessons learned.

Dissecting leadership education and assessment in surgery

The importance of leadership is well recognised within surgery owing to the heavily teamwork dependent nature and uniquely dynamic working environment of the operating room. Teaching and assessment methods of leadership within UK surgical training has arguably lacked credence in comparison to the more tangible technical clinical competencies due to the fact that the daily tasks of surgeons are multifaceted and cannot be simplified into a tick-box exercise. As such, some surgical trainees perceive themselves to be minimally competent in their leadership ability. The new surgical curricula planned to be implemented by the Intercollegiate Surgical Curriculum Programme in August 2021 aims to address this by shifting leadership training and assessment towards an outcome-based approach, rather than a competency-based approach, with an emphasis on the role of the professional judgement of trainers as well as trainee self-reflection. This article explores these proposed changes by framing them within the context of the wider literature pertaining to surgical leadership education.

International expert consensus on laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

IMPORTANCE

While laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is being adopted with increasing enthusiasm worldwide, it is still challenging for both technical and anatomical reasons. Currently, there is no consensus on the technical standards for LPD.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this consensus statement is to guide the continued safe progression and adoption of LPD.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

An international panel of experts was selected based on their clinical and scientific expertise in laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Statements were produced upon reviewing the literature and assessed by the members of the expert panel. The literature search and its critical appraisal were limited to articles published in English during the period from 1994 to 2019. The Web of Science, Medline, and Cochrane Library and Clinical Trials databases were searched, The search strategy included, but was not limited to, the terms 'laparoscopic', 'pancreaticoduodenectomy, 'pancreatoduodenectomy', 'Whipple's operation', and 'minimally invasive surgery'. Reference lists from the included articles were manually checked for any additional studies, which were included when appropriate. Delphi method was used to establish expert consensus and the AGREE II-GRS Instrument was applied to assess the methodological quality and externally validate the final statements. The statements were further discussed during a one-day face-to-face meeting at the 1st Summit on Minimally Invasive Pancreatico-Biliary Surgery in Wuhan, China.

FINDINGS

Twenty-eight international experts from 8 countries constructed the expert panel. Sixteen statements were produced by the members of the expert panel. At least 80% of responders agreed with the majority (80%) of statements. Other than three randomized controlled trials published to date, most evidences were based on level 3 or 4 studies according to the AGREE II-GRS Instrument.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The Wuhan international expert consensus meeting on LPD has produced a set of clinical practice statements for the safe development and progression of LPD. LPD is currently in its development and exploration stages, as defined by the international IDEAL framework for surgical innovation. More robust randomized controlled trial and registry study are essential to proceed with the assessment of LPD.