Bottlenecks and needs in human-human and human-machine interaction – a view from and into the neurosurgical OR
-
Melanie Blaar
,
Armin Janß
Abstract
The number and complexity of user interfaces in the OR has been considerably increasing during the last years. Moreover, increasing cost and time pressure force surgeons and surgical nurses to perform different tasks in parallel. We analyzed the workflow of 25 neurosurgical procedures with a workflow analysis tool in order to analyze the present situation in the neurosurgical OR and to identify potential use-oriented risks and to develop first proposals for respective countermeasures. Application of the navigation system, the CUSA ultrasonic aspirator, and the PACS-PC was associated with errors and resulting potential risks. A number of different disruptive factors have been identified, the most prominent of those being intraoperative duty phone calls, longer absence of the circulating nurses or slipped off foot switches. Furthermore, the identified problems may lead to risks for patient, and also for staff by use errors, associated with an inappropriate cognitive workload of the surgeon or nurses. Organizational and technical countermeasures are necessary: to enhance communication, team trainings could be helpful, and the setup of a mailbox could reduce the number of intraoperative duty phone calls. Technical deficiencies have to be reduced, e.g. with more user-oriented design of devices, such as foot switches, or standard design for user interfaces. For further risk reduction in the case of use deficiencies, we propose the implementation of device interoperability and the use of a sterile integrated user interface in a networked OR.
Acknowledgments
The work has been funded in parts by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) in the framework of the OR.NET project.
References
[1] Awad SS, Fagan SP, Bellows C, et al. Bridging the communication gap in the operating room with medical team training. Am J Surg 2005; 190: 770–774.10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.07.018Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[2] Bauer H. Arbeitsplatz OP: Realität und Anspruch. Dtsch Ärztebl 2006; 103: A3185–A3186.Search in Google Scholar
[3] Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM, et al. Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients: results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study. Qual Saf Health Care 2004; 13: 145–152.10.1056/NEJM199102073240604Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[4] Christian CK, Gustafson ML, Roth EM, et al. A prospective study of patient safety in the operating room. Surgery 2006; 139: 159–173.10.1016/j.surg.2005.07.037Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[5] Cooper JB, Newbower RS, Long CD, McPeek B. Preventable anesthesia mishaps: a study of human factors. Qual Saf Health Care 2002; 11: 277–283.10.1097/00132586-197910000-00024Search in Google Scholar
[6] Cuschieri A. Nature of human error: implications for surgical practice. Ann Surg 2006; 244: 642–648.10.1097/01.sla.0000243601.36582.18Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
[7] Davies JM. Team communication in the operating room. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2005; 49: 898–901.10.1111/j.1399-6576.2005.00636.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
[8] DeFontes J, Surbida S. Preoperative safety briefing project. TPJ 2004; 8: 21–27.Search in Google Scholar
[9] Dix A, Finlay J, Abowd GD, Beale R. Chapter 3: The interaction. In: Dix A (Hrsg.). Human-computer interaction, 3. Auflage. Harlow: Pearson Prentice Hall [u.a.] 2004: 123–163.Search in Google Scholar
[10] Dix A, Finlay J, Abowd GD, Beale R. Chapter 5: Interaction design basics. In: Dix A (Hrsg.). Human-computer Interaction, 3. Auflage. Harlow: Pearson Prentice Hall [u.a.] 2004: 191–224.Search in Google Scholar
[11] Edwards E. Introductory overview. In: Wiener EL, Nagel DC (Hrsg.). Human factors in aviation. San Diego: Elsevier 1988: 11–15.10.1016/B978-0-08-057090-7.50007-2Search in Google Scholar
[12] Gawande AA, Zinner MJ, Studdert DM, Brennan TA. Analysis of errors reported by surgeons at three teaching hospitals. Surgery 2003; 133: 614–621.10.1067/msy.2003.169Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[13] Helmreich RL, Schaefer HG. Team performance in the operating room. In: Bogner MS (Hrsg.). Human error in medicine. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum 1994: 225–254.10.1201/9780203751725-12Search in Google Scholar
[14] Hyman WA. Errors in the use of medical equipment. In: Bogner MS (Hrsg.). Human error in medicine. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum 1994: 327–348.10.1201/9780203751725-15Search in Google Scholar
[15] Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS, McKay T, Pile KC. To err is human: building a safer health system. Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academy Press 1999.Search in Google Scholar
[16] Lingard L, Espin S, Whyte S, et al. Communication failures in the operating room: an observational classification of recurrent types and effects. Qual Saf Health Care 2004; 13: 330–334.10.1136/qshc.2003.008425Search in Google Scholar
[17] Lingard L, Reznick R, Espin S, Regehr G, DeVito I. Team communications in the operating room: talk patterns, sites of tension, and implications for novices. Acad Med 2002; 77: 232–237.10.1097/00001888-200203000-00013Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[18] Matern U. Operating room – state-of-the-art and beyond. Min Invas Ther Allied Technol 2003; 12: 254–255.10.1080/13645700310019910Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[19] Matern U, Koneczny S, Scherrer M, Gerlings T. Arbeitsbedingungen und Sicherheit am Arbeitsplatz OP. Dtsch Ärztebl 2006; 103: A3187–A3192.Search in Google Scholar
[20] McFarlane DC, Latorella KA. The scope and importance of human interruption in human–computer interaction design. Hum-Comput Interact 2002; 17: 1–61.10.1207/S15327051HCI1701_1Search in Google Scholar
[21] Reason J. Human error. Br Med J 2000; 320: 768–770.10.1136/bmj.320.7237.768Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
[22] Rooney JJ, Vanden Heuvel LN, Lorenzo DK. Reduce human error: how to analyze near misses and sentinel events, determine root causes and implement corrective actions. Qual Progr 2002: 27–36.Search in Google Scholar
[23] Sharit J. Human error and human reliability analysis. In: Salvendy G (Hrsg.). Handbook of human factors and ergonomics, 4. Auflage. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley 2012: 734–800.10.1002/9781118131350.ch26Search in Google Scholar
[24] Sheridan TB, Thompson JM. People versus computers in medicine? In: Bogner MS (Hrsg.). Human error in medicine. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum 1994: 141–158.10.1201/9780203751725-8Search in Google Scholar
[25] Timpe KP, Kolrep H. Das Mensch-Maschine-System als interdisziplinärer Gegenstand. In: Timpe KP, Jürgensohn T, Kolrep H (Hrsg.). Mensch-maschine-systemtechnik. Konzepte, Modellierung, Gestaltung, Evaluation. Düsseldorf: Symposion Publishing 2000: 9–40.Search in Google Scholar
[26] Watzlawick P. Pragmatische Axiome – ein Definitionsversuch. In: Watzlawick P (Hrsg.): Menschliche Kommunikation: Formen, Störungen, Paradoxien, 10. Auflage. Huber, Bern 2003: 50–71.Search in Google Scholar
[27] Weingart SN, Wilson RM, Gibberd RW, Harrison B. Epidemiology of medical error. Br Med J 2000; 320: 774–777.10.1136/bmj.320.7237.774Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
[28] Weyer J. Die Risiken der Automationsarbeit: Mensch-Maschine-Interaktion und Störfallmanagement in hochautomatisierten Verkehrsflugzeugen. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 1997; 26: 239–257.10.1515/zfsoz-1997-0401Search in Google Scholar
[29] Zhang J, Patel VL, Johnson TR, Chung P, Turley JP. Evaluating and predicting patient safety for medical devices with integral information technology. Adv Patient Saf 2005; 2: 323–336.10.1037/e448232006-001Search in Google Scholar
[30] Zschernack S, Göbel M, Friesdorf W, Gödecke K, Penth S, Reschke R. Abschlussbericht: Sicherheit und Gesundheit im Operationssaal. Berlin 2004.Search in Google Scholar
©2016 by De Gruyter
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- Special Issue Risk management in medical human-machine systems
- Special issue articles
- Bottlenecks and needs in human-human and human-machine interaction – a view from and into the neurosurgical OR
- A human factors perspective on medical device alarms: problems with operating alarming devices and responding to device alarms
- Human-centered risk management for medical devices – new methods and tools
- Modular user interface design for integrated surgical workplaces
- Development and experimental evaluation of an alarm concept for an integrated surgical workstation
- Training students to use syringe pumps: an experimental comparison of e-learning and classroom training
- Approaches towards training in human risk management of surgical technology
- A UK medical devices regulator’s perspective on registries
- Incident reporting to BfArM – regulatory framework, results and challenges
- Book review
- Volume 10 of the Textbook Series Biomedical Technology
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- Special Issue Risk management in medical human-machine systems
- Special issue articles
- Bottlenecks and needs in human-human and human-machine interaction – a view from and into the neurosurgical OR
- A human factors perspective on medical device alarms: problems with operating alarming devices and responding to device alarms
- Human-centered risk management for medical devices – new methods and tools
- Modular user interface design for integrated surgical workplaces
- Development and experimental evaluation of an alarm concept for an integrated surgical workstation
- Training students to use syringe pumps: an experimental comparison of e-learning and classroom training
- Approaches towards training in human risk management of surgical technology
- A UK medical devices regulator’s perspective on registries
- Incident reporting to BfArM – regulatory framework, results and challenges
- Book review
- Volume 10 of the Textbook Series Biomedical Technology
