Search

Objectives: To examine the effectiveness of a “systems” approach using Lean methodology to improve surgical care, as part of a programme of studies investigating possible synergy between improvement approaches. Setting: A controlled before-after study using the orthopaedic trauma theatre of a UK Trust hospital as the active site and an elective orthopaedic theatre in the same Trust as control. Participants: All staff involved in surgical procedures in both theatres. Interventions: A one-day “lean” training course delivered by an experienced specialist team was followed by support and assistance in developing a 6 month improvement project. Clinical staff selected the subjects for improvement and designed the improvements. Outcome Measures: We compared technical and non-technical team performance in theatre using WHO checklist compliance evaluation, “glitch count” and Oxford NOTECHS II in a sample of directly observed operations, and patient outcome (length of stay, complications and readmissions) for all patients. We collected observational data for 3 months and clinical data for 6 months before and after the intervention period. We compared changes in measures using 2-way analysis of variance. Results: We studied 576 cases before and 465 after intervention, observing the operation in 38 and 41 cases respectively. We found no significant changes in team performance or patient outcome measures. The intervention theatre staff focused their efforts on improving first patient arrival time, which improved by 20 minutes after intervention. Conclusions: This version of “lean” system improvement did not improve measured safety processes or outcomes. The study highlighted an important tension between promoting staff ownership and providing direction, which needs to be managed in “lean” projects. Space and time for staff to conduct improvement activities are important for success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Teamwork training and system standardisation have both been proposed to reduce error and harm in surgery. Since the approaches differ markedly, there is potential for synergy between them. Methods Design: Controlled interrupted time series with a 3 month intervention and observation phases before and after. Setting: Operating theatres conducting elective orthopaedic surgery in a single hospital system (UK Hospital Trust). Intervention: Teamwork training based on crew resource management plus training and follow-up support in developing standardised operating procedures. Focus of subsequent standardisation efforts decided by theatre staff. Measures: Paired observers watched whole procedures together. We assessed non-technical skills using NOTECHS II, technical performance using glitch rate and compliance with WHO checklist using a simple quality tool. We measured complication and readmission rates and hospital stay using hospital administrative records. Before/after change was compared in the active and control groups using two-way ANOVA and regression models. Results 1121 patients were operated on before and 1100 after intervention. 44 operations were observed before and 50 afterwards. Nontechnical skills (p=0.002) and WHO compliance (p<0.001) improved significantly after the intervention in the active versus the control group. Glitch count improved in both groups and there was no significant effect on clinical outcomes. Discussion Combined training in teamwork and system improvement causes marked improvements in team behaviour and WHO performance, but not technical performance or outcome. These findings are consistent with the synergistic hypothesis, but larger controlled studies with a strong implementation strategy are required to test potential outcome effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Standard operating procedures (SOPs) should improve safety in the operating theatre, but controlled studies evaluating the effect of staff-led implementation are needed. Methods In a controlled interrupted time series, we evaluated three team process measures (compliance with WHO surgical safety checklist, non-technical skills and technical performance) and three clinical outcome measures (length of hospital stay, complications and readmissions) before and after a 3-month staff-led development of SOPs. Process measures were evaluated by direct observation, using Oxford Non-Technical Skills II for non-technical skills and the 'glitch count' for technical performance. All staff in two orthopaedic operating theatres were trained in the principles of SOPs and then assisted to develop standardised procedures. Staff in a control operating theatre underwent the same observations but received no training. The change in difference between active and control groups was compared before and after the intervention using repeated measures analysis of variance. Results We observed 50 operations before and 55 after the intervention and analysed clinical data on 1022 and 861 operations, respectively. The staff chose to structure their efforts around revising the 'whiteboard' which documented and prompted tasks, rather than directly addressing specific task problems. Although staff preferred and sustained the new system, we found no significant differences in process or outcome measures before/after intervention in the active versus the control group. There was a secular trend towards worse outcomes in the postintervention period, seen in both active and control theatres. Conclusions SOPs when developed and introduced by frontline staff do not necessarily improve operative processes or outcomes. The inherent tension in improvement work between giving staff ownership of improvement and maintaining control of direction needs to be managed, to ensure staff are engaged but invest energy in appropriate change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We previously developed and validated the Oxford NOTECHS rating system for evaluating the non-technical skills of an entire operating theatre team. Experience with the scale identified the need for greater discrimination between levels of performance within the normal range. We report here the development of a modified scale (Oxford NOTECHS II) to facilitate this. The new measure uses an eight-point instead of a four point scale to measure each dimension of non-technical skills, and begins with a default rating of 6 for each element. We evaluated this new scale in 297 operations at five NHS sites in four surgical specialities. Measures of theatre process reliability (glitch count) and compliance with the WHO surgical safety checklist were scored contemporaneously, and relationships with NOTECHS II scores explored. Results: Mean team Oxford NOTECHS II scores was 73.39 (range 37–92). The means for surgical, anaesthetic and nursing sub-teams were 24.61 (IQR 23, 27); 24.22 (IQR 23, 26) and 24.55 (IQR 23, 26). Oxford NOTECHS II showed good inter-rater reliability between human factors and clinical observers in each of the four domains. Teams with high WHO compliance had higher mean Oxford NOTECHS II scores (74.5) than those with low compliance (71.1) (p = 0.010). We observed only a weak correlation between Oxford NOTECHS II scores and glitch count; r = −0.26 (95% CI −0.36 to −0.15). Oxford NOTECHS II scores did not vary significantly between 5 different hospital sites, but a significant difference was seen between specialities (p = 0.001). Conclusions: Oxford NOTECHS II provides good discrimination between teams while retaining reliability and correlation with other measures of teamwork performance, and is not confounded by technical performance. It is therefore suitable for combined use with a technical performance scale to provide a global description of operating theatre team performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]