Department of Human Factors, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, Florida, USA.
Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
Anaesthesia. 2016 Aug;71(8):948-54. doi: 10.1111/anae.13521.
The objectives of this study were to identify the frequency and nature of flow disruptions in the operating room with respect to three cardiac surgical team members: anaesthetists; circulating nurses; and perfusionists. Data collected from 15 cases and coded using a human factors taxonomy identified 878 disruptions. Significant differences were identified in frequency relative to discipline type. Circulating nurses experienced more coordination disruptions (χ(2) (2, N = 110) = 7.136, p < 0.028) and interruptions (χ(2) (2, N = 427) = 29.743, p = 0.001) than anaesthetists and perfusionists, whereas anaesthetists and perfusionists experienced more layout issues than circulating nurses (χ(2) (2, N = 153) = 48.558, p = 0.001). Time to resolve disruptions also varied among disciplines (λ (12, 878) = 5.186, p = 0.000). Although most investigations take a one-size fits all approach in addressing disruptions to flow, this study demonstrates that targeted interventions must focus on differences with respect to individual role.
本研究的目的是确定手术室中三名心脏外科手术团队成员(麻醉师、巡回护士和灌注师)的流动中断频率和性质。从 15 例中收集的数据,并使用人为因素分类法进行编码,共确定了 878 次中断。与学科类型相比,频率存在显著差异。巡回护士经历的协调中断(χ(2)(2,N=110)=7.136,p<0.028)和中断(χ(2)(2,N=427)=29.743,p=0.001)比麻醉师和灌注师多,而麻醉师和灌注师经历的布局问题比巡回护士多(χ(2)(2,N=153)=48.558,p=0.001)。解决中断的时间也因学科而异(λ(12,878)=5.186,p=0.000)。尽管大多数调查都采用一刀切的方法来解决流程中断问题,但本研究表明,有针对性的干预措施必须针对个人角色的差异。