Implementing new information systems and devices, in high-reliability organizations such as operating rooms (OR’s) in hospitals, is complex. To improve the success and efficiency of these implementations we constructed a protocol for implementation for digitization and devices in OR’s. This protocol consists of implementation factors, implementation activities, and implementation instructions. In this study, we evaluated this protocol. To gather data, we organized three focus group sessions with participants holding different job roles at different departments: a surgeon, a methodologist, anesthesiologists, a scrub nurse, a training officer, innovations officers, and OR-management. We gathered qualitative data regarding completeness, clearness, and the ability to execute. Sessions were video-recorded, transcribed, and coded in Nvivo for Windows according to Toulmins Argumentative Pattern. Based on this analysis, revisions to factors, activities, and instructions are presented for protocol enhancement; experts confirm that an implementation protocol is needed to increase implementation efficiency and adoption of new devices.
DOCUMENT
Background: Non-technical errors, such as insufficient communication or leadership, are a major cause of medical failures during trauma resuscitation. Research on staffing variation among trauma teams on teamwork is still in their infancy. In this study, the extent of variation in trauma team staffing was assessed. Our hypothesis was that there would be a high variation in trauma team staffing. Methods: Trauma team composition of consecutive resuscitations of injured patients were evaluated using videos. All trauma team members that where part of a trauma team during a trauma resuscitation were identified and classified during a one-week period. Other outcomes were number of unique team members, number of new team members following the previous resuscitation and new team members following the previous resuscitation in the same shift (Day, Evening, Night). Results: All thirty-two analyzed resuscitations had a unique trauma team composition and 101 unique members were involved. A mean of 5.71 (SD 2.57) new members in teams of consecutive trauma resuscitations was found, which was two-third of the trauma team. Mean team members present during trauma resuscitation was 8.38 (SD 1.43). Most variation in staffing was among nurses (32 unique members), radiology technicians (22 unique members) and anesthetists (19 unique members). The least variation was among trauma surgeons (3 unique members) and ER physicians (3 unique members). Conclusion: We found an extremely high variation in trauma team staffing during thirty-two consecutive resuscitations at our level one trauma center which is incorporated in an academic teaching hospital. Further research is required to explore and prevent potential negative effects of staffing variation in trauma teams on teamwork, processes and patient related outcomes.
DOCUMENT
Background: The increasing numbers of surgeries involving high risk, multi-morbid patients, coupled with inconsistencies in the practice of perioperative surgical wound care, increases patients’ risk of surgical site infection and other wound complications. Objectives: To synthesise and evaluate the recommendations for nursing practice and research from published systematic reviews in the Cochrane Library on nurse-led preoperative prophylaxis and postoperative surgical wound care interventions used or initiated by nurses. Design: Meta-review, guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data sources: The Cochrane Library database. Review methods: All Cochrane Systematic Reviews were eligible. Two reviewers independently selected the reviews and extracted data. One reviewer appraised the methodological quality of the included reviews using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 checklist. A second reviewer independently verified these appraisals. The review protocol was registered with the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. Results: Twenty-two Cochrane reviews met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 11 reviews focused on preoperative interventions to prevent infection, while 12 focused on postoperative interventions (one review assessed both pre-postoperative interventions). Across all reviews, 14 (63.6%) made at least one recommendation to undertake a specific practice, while two reviews (9.1%) made at least one specific recommendation not to undertake a practice. In relation to recommendations for further research, insufficient sample size was the most predominant methodological issue (12/22) identified across reviews. Conclusions: The limited number of recommendations for pre-and-postoperative interventions reflects the paucity of high-quality evidence, suggesting a need for rigorous trials to address these evidence gaps in fundamentals of nursing care.
DOCUMENT
