Search

Hospitals work to provide quality, safety, and availability to patients with a wide variety of care needs, which makes efficient prioritisation and resource utilisation essential. Anticipation of each patients' trajectory, while monitoring available resources across the hospital, are major challenges for patient flow management. This study focuses on how hospital patient flow management is realised in situ with the help of concepts from cognitive systems engineering. Five semi-structured interviews with high level managers and shadowing observations of seven full work-shifts with management teams were conducted, to explore how patient flow is coordinated and communicated across the hospital. The data has been analysed using qualitative content analysis. The results describe patient flow management using an adapted Extended Control Model (ECOM) and reveal how authority and information might be better placed closer to clinical work for increased efficiency of patient flow. Practitioner summary: This study describes how a large tertiary paediatric hospital's patient flow management functions. The results offer a new understanding of how patient flow management is communicated and coordinated across organisational levels of the hospital and how authority and information might be better placed closer to clinical work for increased efficiency.

Introduction Safe anaesthesia care is a fundamental part of healthcare. In a previous study, registered nurse anaesthetists (RNAs) had the highest task frequency, with the largest amount of multitasking and interruptions among all professionals working in a surgical team. There is a lack of knowledge on how these factors are distributed during the intraoperative anaesthesia care process, and what implications they might have on safety and quality of care. Objective To map the RNAs' work as done in practice, including tasks, multitasking, interruptions and their causes, and interactions, during all phases of the intraoperative anaesthesia work process. Methods Structured observations of RNAs (n=8) conducted during 30 procedures lasting a total of 73 hours in an operating department at a county hospital in Sweden, using the Work Observation Method By Activity Timing tool. Results High task intensity and multitasking were revealed during preparation for anaesthesia induction (79 tasks/hour, 61.9% of task time spent multitasking), anaesthesia induction (98 tasks/hour, 50.7%) and preparation for anaesthesia maintenance (86 tasks/hour, 80.2%). Frequent interruptions took place during preoperative preparation (4.7 /hour), anaesthesia induction (6.2 /hour) and preparation for anaesthesia maintenance (4.3 /hour). The interruptions were most often related to medication care (n=54, 19.8%), equipment issues (n=40, 14.7%) or the procedure itself (n=39, 14.3%). RNAs' work was conducted mostly independently (58.4%), but RNAs interacted with multiple professionals in and outside the operating room during anaesthesia. Conclusion The tasks, multitasking, interruptions and their causes, and interactions during different phases illustrated the RNAs' work as done, as part of a complex adaptive system. Management of safety in the most intense phases-preparing for anaesthesia induction, induction and preparing for anaesthesia maintenance-should be investigated further. The complexity and

OBJECTIVES: The work context of the operating room (OR) is considered complex and dynamic with high cognitive demands. A multidimensional view of the complete preoperative and intraoperative work process of the surgical team in the OR has been sparsely described. The aim of this study was to describe the type and frequency of tasks, multitasking, interruptions and their causes during surgical procedures from a multidimensional perspective on the surgical team in the OR. DESIGN: Prospective observational study using the Work Observation Method By Activity Timing tool. SETTING: An OR department at a county hospital in Sweden. PARTICIPANTS: OR nurses (ORNs) (n=10), registered nurse anaesthetists (RNAs) (n=8) and surgeons (n=9). RESULTS: The type, frequency and time spent on specific tasks, multitasking and interruptions were measured. From a multidimensional view, the surgical team performed 64 tasks per hour. Communication represented almost half (45.7%) of all observed tasks. Concerning task time, direct care dominated the surgeons' and ORNs' intraoperative time, while in RNAs' work, it was intra-indirect care. In total, 48.2% of time was spent in multitasking and was most often observed in ORNs' and surgeons' work during communication. Interruptions occurred 3.0 per hour, and the largest proportion, 26.7%, was related to equipment. Interruptions were most commonly followed by professional communication. CONCLUSIONS: The surgical team constantly dealt with multitasking and interruptions, both with potential impact on workflow and patient safety. Interruptions were commonly followed by professional communication, which may reflect the interactions and constant adaptations in a complex adaptive system. Future research should focus on understanding the complexity within the system, on the design of different work processes and on how teams meet the challenges of a complex adaptive system. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 2016/264.

OBJECTIVES: The work context of the operating room (OR) is considered complex and dynamic with high cognitive demands. A multidimensional view of the complete preoperative and intraoperative work process of the surgical team in the OR has been sparsely described. The aim of this study was to describe the type and frequency of tasks, multitasking, interruptions and their causes during surgical procedures from a multidimensional perspective on the surgical team in the OR. DESIGN: Prospective observational study using the Work Observation Method By Activity Timing tool. SETTING: An OR department at a county hospital in Sweden. PARTICIPANTS: OR nurses (ORNs) (n=10), registered nurse anaesthetists (RNAs) (n=8) and surgeons (n=9). RESULTS: The type, frequency and time spent on specific tasks, multitasking and interruptions were measured. From a multidimensional view, the surgical team performed 64 tasks per hour. Communication represented almost half (45.7%) of all observed tasks. Concerning task time, direct care dominated the surgeons' and ORNs' intraoperative time, while in RNAs' work, it was intra-indirect care. In total, 48.2% of time was spent in multitasking and was most often observed in ORNs' and surgeons' work during communication. Interruptions occurred 3.0 per hour, and the largest proportion, 26.7%, was related to equipment. Interruptions were most commonly followed by professional communication. CONCLUSIONS: The surgical team constantly dealt with multitasking and interruptions, both with potential impact on workflow and patient safety. Interruptions were commonly followed by professional communication, which may reflect the interactions and constant adaptations in a complex adaptive system. Future research should focus on understanding the complexity within the system, on the design of different work processes and on how teams meet the challenges of a complex adaptive system. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 2016/264.

OBJECTIVES: The work context of the operating room (OR) is considered complex and dynamic with high cognitive demands. A multidimensional view of the complete preoperative and intraoperative work process of the surgical team in the OR has been sparsely described. The aim of this study was to describe the type and frequency of tasks, multitasking, interruptions and their causes during surgical procedures from a multidimensional perspective on the surgical team in the OR. DESIGN: Prospective observational study using the Work Observation Method By Activity Timing tool. SETTING: An OR department at a county hospital in Sweden. PARTICIPANTS: OR nurses (ORNs) (n=10), registered nurse anaesthetists (RNAs) (n=8) and surgeons (n=9). RESULTS: The type, frequency and time spent on specific tasks, multitasking and interruptions were measured. From a multidimensional view, the surgical team performed 64 tasks per hour. Communication represented almost half (45.7%) of all observed tasks. Concerning task time, direct care dominated the surgeons' and ORNs' intraoperative time, while in RNAs' work, it was intra-indirect care. In total, 48.2% of time was spent in multitasking and was most often observed in ORNs' and surgeons' work during communication. Interruptions occurred 3.0 per hour, and the largest proportion, 26.7%, was related to equipment. Interruptions were most commonly followed by professional communication. CONCLUSIONS: The surgical team constantly dealt with multitasking and interruptions, both with potential impact on workflow and patient safety. Interruptions were commonly followed by professional communication, which may reflect the interactions and constant adaptations in a complex adaptive system. Future research should focus on understanding the complexity within the system, on the design of different work processes and on how teams meet the challenges of a complex adaptive system. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 2016/264.

OBJECTIVES: The work context of the operating room (OR) is considered complex and dynamic with high cognitive demands. A multidimensional view of the complete preoperative and intraoperative work process of the surgical team in the OR has been sparsely described. The aim of this study was to describe the type and frequency of tasks, multitasking, interruptions and their causes during surgical procedures from a multidimensional perspective on the surgical team in the OR. DESIGN: Prospective observational study using the Work Observation Method By Activity Timing tool. SETTING: An OR department at a county hospital in Sweden. PARTICIPANTS: OR nurses (ORNs) (n=10), registered nurse anaesthetists (RNAs) (n=8) and surgeons (n=9). RESULTS: The type, frequency and time spent on specific tasks, multitasking and interruptions were measured. From a multidimensional view, the surgical team performed 64 tasks per hour. Communication represented almost half (45.7%) of all observed tasks. Concerning task time, direct care dominated the surgeons' and ORNs' intraoperative time, while in RNAs' work, it was intra-indirect care. In total, 48.2% of time was spent in multitasking and was most often observed in ORNs' and surgeons' work during communication. Interruptions occurred 3.0 per hour, and the largest proportion, 26.7%, was related to equipment. Interruptions were most commonly followed by professional communication. CONCLUSIONS: The surgical team constantly dealt with multitasking and interruptions, both with potential impact on workflow and patient safety. Interruptions were commonly followed by professional communication, which may reflect the interactions and constant adaptations in a complex adaptive system. Future research should focus on understanding the complexity within the system, on the design of different work processes and on how teams meet the challenges of a complex adaptive system. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 2016/264.

OBJECTIVES: The work context of the operating room (OR) is considered complex and dynamic with high cognitive demands. A multidimensional view of the complete preoperative and intraoperative work process of the surgical team in the OR has been sparsely described. The aim of this study was to describe the type and frequency of tasks, multitasking, interruptions and their causes during surgical procedures from a multidimensional perspective on the surgical team in the OR. DESIGN: Prospective observational study using the Work Observation Method By Activity Timing tool. SETTING: An OR department at a county hospital in Sweden. PARTICIPANTS: OR nurses (ORNs) (n=10), registered nurse anaesthetists (RNAs) (n=8) and surgeons (n=9). RESULTS: The type, frequency and time spent on specific tasks, multitasking and interruptions were measured. From a multidimensional view, the surgical team performed 64 tasks per hour. Communication represented almost half (45.7%) of all observed tasks. Concerning task time, direct care dominated the surgeons' and ORNs' intraoperative time, while in RNAs' work, it was intra-indirect care. In total, 48.2% of time was spent in multitasking and was most often observed in ORNs' and surgeons' work during communication. Interruptions occurred 3.0 per hour, and the largest proportion, 26.7%, was related to equipment. Interruptions were most commonly followed by professional communication. CONCLUSIONS: The surgical team constantly dealt with multitasking and interruptions, both with potential impact on workflow and patient safety. Interruptions were commonly followed by professional communication, which may reflect the interactions and constant adaptations in a complex adaptive system. Future research should focus on understanding the complexity within the system, on the design of different work processes and on how teams meet the challenges of a complex adaptive system. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 2016/264.

Ej belagd 20190322

Ej belagd 20190322

Background There has been a theoretical debate as to which retrospective record review method is the most valid, reliable, cost efficient and feasible for detecting adverse events. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the feasibility and capability of two common retrospective record review methods, the “Harvard Medical Practice Study” method and the “Global Trigger Tool” in detecting adverse events in adult orthopaedic inpatients. Methods We performed a three-stage structured retrospective record review process in a random sample of 350 orthopaedic admissions during 2009 at a Swedish university hospital. Two teams comprised each of a registered nurse and two physicians were assigned, one to each method. All records were primarily reviewed by registered nurses. Records containing a potential adverse event were forwarded to physicians for review in stage 2. Physicians made an independent review regarding, for example, healthcare causation, preventability and severity. In the third review stage all adverse events that were found with the two methods together were compared and all discrepancies after review stage 2 were analysed. Events that had not been identified by one of the methods in the first two review stages were reviewed by the respective physicians. Results Altogether, 160 different adverse events were identified in 105 (30.0%) of the 350 records with both methods combined. The “Harvard Medical Practice Study” method identified 155 of the 160 (96.9%, 95% CI: 92.9-99.0) adverse events in 104 (29.7%) records compared with 137 (85.6%, 95% CI: 79.2-90.7) adverse events in 98 (28.0%) records using the “Global Trigger Tool”. Adverse events “causing harm without permanent disability” accounted for most of the observed difference. The overall positive predictive value for criteria and triggers using the “Harvard Medical Practice Study” method and the “Global Trigger Tool” was 40.3% and 30.4%, respectively. Conclusions More adverse events were identified using