Safer Surgery part 15 pptx

Safer Surgery 114 detail while being practical, inexpensive and easy to use, and that describe more closely the relationship between teamwork, performance, safety and quality. Acknowledgements This work was generously funded by the BUPA foundation, with our earlier reported work supported by the Patient Safety Research Programme. Thanks also to the rest of the Great Ormond Street project team, and especially Professor Marc de Leval and Mr Tony Giddings. References Avermaete, J.A.G. and van Kruijsen, E.A.C. (1998) NOTECHS. The Evaluation of Non-technical Skills of Multi-pilot Aircrew in Relation to the JAR-FCL Requirements. Amsterdam: EC NOTECHS Project nal. Catchpole, K., Godden, P.J., Giddings, A.E.B., Hirst, G., Dale, T., Utley, M., Gallivan, S. and de Leval, M. (2005) Identifying and Reducing Errors in the Operating Theatre (Rep. No. PS012). Patient Safety Research Programme. Available at <http://www.pcpoh.bham.ac.uk/publichealth/psrp/documents/ PS012_Final_Report_DeLeval.pdf> [last accessed February 2009]. Catchpole, K.R., Giddings, A.E., de Leval, M.R., Peek, G.J., Godden, P.J., Utley, M., Gallivan, S., Hirst, G. and Dale, T. (2006) Identication of systems failures in successful paediatric cardiac surgery. Ergonomics 49, 567–88. Catchpole, K., Giddings, A.E., Wilkinson, M., Dale, T., Hirst, G., and de Leval, M.R. (2007) Improving patient safety by identifying latent failures in successful operations. Surgery 142, 102–110. de Leval, M.R., Carthey, J., Wright, D.J., and Reason, J.T. (2000) Human factors and cardiac surgery: A multicenter study. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 119, 661–72. Fletcher, G.C.L., Flin, R.H., Glavin, R J., Maran, N.J. and Patey, R. (2004) Rating non-technical skills: Developing a behavioural marker system for use in anaesthesia. Cognition, Technology and Work 6, 165–71. Fletcher, G.C.L., Flin, R.H., Glavin, R.J., Maran, N.J. and Patey, R. (2003) Anaesthetists’ Non-Technical Skills (ANTS): Evaluation of a behavioural marker system. British Journal of Anaesthesia 90, 580–8. Flin, R., Martin, L., Goeters, K., Hoermann, J., Amalberti, R., Valot, C. and Nijhuis, H. (2003) Development of the NOTECHS (Non-Technical Skills) system for assessing pilots’ CRM skills. Human Factors and Aerospace Safety 3, 95–117. Helmreich, R.L. and Musson, D.M. (2000) The University of Texas Threat and Error Management Model: Components and examples. British Medical Journal website. Available at: <http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/ Rating Operating Theatre Teams 115 group/HelmreichLAB/Publications/publes/Pub248.pdf> [last accessed February 2009]. Helmreich, R.L., Klinect, J.R. and Wilhelm, J.A. (1999) Models of threat, error, and CRM in ight operations. Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 667–82). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University. Lodge, M., Fletcher, G.C.L., Russell, S., Goeters, K.M., Hoermann, H., Nijhuis, H. et al. (2001) Results of the Experiment. JARTEL WP3 Final Report (Rep. No. JARTEL/BA/WP3/D5_20.). Brussels: The JARTEL Consortium, for the European Commission, DG TREN. McCulloch, P., Mishra, A., Handa, A., Dale, T., Hirst, G. and Catchpole, K. (2009) The effects of aviation-style non-technical skills training on technical performance and outcome in the operating theatre. Quality and Safety in Healthcare 18, 109–115 Mishra, A., Catchpole, K., and McCulloch, P. (2009) The Oxford NOTECHS System: Reliability and validity of a tool for measuring teamwork behaviour in the operating theatre. Quality and Safety in Healthcare 18, 104–108. O’Connor, P., Hormann, J., Flin, R.H., Lodge, M., Goeters, K.M. and The JARTEL Group (2002) Developing a method for evaluating Crew Resource Management skills: A European perspective. International Journal of Aviation Psychology 12, 263–85. Tang, B., Hanna, G.B., Joice, P. and Cuschieri, A. (2004) Identication and categorization of technical errors by Observational Clinical Human Reliability Assessment (OCHRA) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Archives of Surgery 139, 1215–20. Undre, S., Sevdalis, N., Healey, A.N., Darzi, A. and Vincent, C.A. (2007) Observational Teamwork Assessment for Surgery (OTAS): Renement and application in urological surgery. World Journal of Surgery 31, 1373–81. Yule, S., Flin, R., Paterson-Brown, S., Maran, N. and Rowley, D. (2006) Development of a rating system for surgeons’ non-technical skills. Medical Education 40, 1098–104. This page has been left blank intentionally Chapter 8 RATE: A Customizable, Portable Hardware/ Software System for Analysing and Teaching Human Performance in the Operating Roo m Stephanie Guerlain and J. Forrest Calland Introduction Researchers at the University of Virginia are studying human performance in the operating room in an effort to understand the factors that lead to or inhibit patient safety in this environment. In general, observation ‘in the wild’ is extremely difcult as there is no transcription or video recording upon which to base an analysis or to validate the result. Or, even with such recordings, the work to code and analyse these recordings is extremely labour intensive and thus may not be practical for ‘real-world’ projects that do not have enormous budgets (and time) to accommodate such analyses. We have developed and tested several methodologies that enable collecting team data ‘on the y’, some of which are ‘summative’ evaluations and others that are more detailed process tracing of events and communications yielding directly usable data that can be analysed to characterize team behaviours immediately following the team process that was observed. We specically report here on the design of a portable and customizable hardware/software system called Remote Analysis of Team Environments (RATE) that we have used to run two studies designed to improve team communication and coordination in the operating room (Guerlain et al. 2004, 2005, 2008), one handoff-of-care study for paediatric residents (Sledd et al. 2006) and one usability study (in progress). This chapter is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation and describes how the system works; it has been used in our operating room studies. The hardware enables digitally recording up to four video feeds and eight audio feeds. The event-recording software enables observers to create a customized set of events of interest that can be logged into a time-stamped database when watching a case live. The playback software synchronizes the event-recording database with the audiovisual (AV) data for efcient review of the case. Safer Surgery 118 Why Study Team Communication in the Operating Room? In the United States, operating suites at academic medical centres do not have consistent standard procedures or protocols. Team members often rotate across different teams and techniques and procedures often vary depending on the staff and the technology available. Research, though limited, has demonstrated that poor teamwork and communication exist during surgical procedures (Guerlain et al. 2008, Helmreich and Schaefer 1994, Sexton et al. 2002). Our pre-intervention observation studies showed that rarely is sufcient information shared between the surgeon and other team members from anaesthesia to nursing about the plan. Researchers have begun to study team performance in the operating room, most often focusing on anaesthesiology. Gaba has studied the use of crew resource management (CRM) training for anaesthesiologists using an anaesthesia simulator (Gaba 1989). Xiao, McKenzie and the LOTAS group at the University of Maryland Shock Trauma Center have evaluated anaesthesiology performance on trauma teams (Xiao et al. 2000, Xiao and The LOTAS Group 2001), and have evaluated focused tasks, such as patient intubation. Little research, however, has been conducted evaluating team performance from the surgeon’s perspective. This may be due to the difculty of judging performance during long, complicated, primarily manual procedures (e.g., no computerized data are collected). Evaluation of Teamwork Because team members with distinct tasks must interact in order to achieve a shared goal, multiple factors play a role in determining the success of a team, such as organizational resource availability, team authority, team effort, leadership, task complexity and communication. These constructs cannot be measured in the same sense as temperature or pressure and may interact with each other in complex ways. Collecting behavioural data means that an observer needs to capture ‘the moment- to-moment aspects of team behaviors’. ‘While reliance on expert observer ratings may be a necessity, there is considerable discretion about what is measured’, creating noise in the data as well as missing data points (Rouse et al. 1992, p. 1298). In crew resource management training and evaluation, trained raters judge the adequacy of communication overall on a rating scale, either periodically or at the end of a test (or live) situation. Thus, the team is given one or a few overall scores. It is difcult, however, to develop reliable, sensitive scoring metrics, although signicant work has been done in this area (Flin and Maran 2004, Law and Sherman 1995). Others look at just performance metrics or knowledge of team members at particular points during a team activity or at the end (e.g., Endsley 1995) or count ‘utterances’ or communication ‘vectors’ (who is talking to whom) (e.g., Moorthy et al. 2005). If one has transcribed verbal data, then verbal protocol analysis (Simon and Ericsson 1993) or even automated linguistic analysis can be RATE 119 conducted. For example, in a study conducted by Sexton and Helmreich (2000), a computer-based linguistic tool was used to analyse how various language usages affect error rates by ight deck crew members. The study indicated that ‘specic language variables are moderately to highly correlated with individual performance, individual error rates, and individual communication ratings’ (p. 63). Thus, frequent usage of rst person plural (we, our, us) tends to be correlated with a reduced occurrence of error. The study also pointed out the number of words used by the crew members increases in an abnormal hostile situation or during times when workload is increased. Such techniques, however, rst require that all communications are transcribed, an extremely labour-intensive, time-consuming and tedious task. Our approach was to have a ‘happy medium’ that provides a fairly detailed process tracing of events and communications that goes beyond just utterances but does not require transcription of verbal data. RATE enables trained observers to mark events of interest ‘on the y’ while watching the team process, knowing that the resultant data set may not be 100 per cent accurate, but beneting from the fact that the data are immediately available for summarization of events (e.g., number of observed contaminations, or amount of communication that was focused on teaching vs. coordination) with the ability to immediately jump the AV record to a few seconds before any event that was marked, either for teaching or review purposes or to further validate the data. Thus, we end up with a human-indexed summarization of events with an ability to play back those events of interest without having to search through a long AV record. The methods reported here were developed to support observation and scoring of teams performing laparoscopic cholecystectomy, a surgical procedure to remove the gallbladder. The procedure created an ideal situation due to its frequency of performance and relatively short time length of procedure (1–1.5 hours from patient entering to patient leaving the room). The challenges include the fact that a standard team is made up of at least ve people: anaesthesiologist, attending surgeon, resident surgeon, scrub tech, circulating nurse; in our institution, a medical student who acts as the laparoscopic camera operator and an anaesthetist is most often included too. Others such as technicians and nurses-in-training may also be present. Reliability of the data becomes an issue when the observer is confronted with tracking multiple events by multiple test subjects when evaluating a team (Simon and Ericsson 1993). One of the biggest problems in collecting such data is determining how much individual interpretation by an observer affects the make-up of the data. If the purpose of the data collection tool is to produce consistent and valid data, then the data collection tool/methodology should also produce data that has high inter-rater agreement between multiple observers. A data collection tool that can minimize the effects of individual interpretation may result in a data set that has high degree of inter-rater agreement. This can be aided with a computerized system that helps standardize the data collection options. In our system, we agreed ahead of time on the types of events we wanted to track, and the event-marking software aids Safer Surgery 120 in this process. Events can be ‘one-time’ checkboxes, such as ‘Patient enters room’, ‘Antibiotics given’, ‘First skin incision’, etc., ‘countable’ list items, such as ‘Dropped the gallbladder’, ‘Contamination’, ‘Distraction’, etc. or a series of pick lists that enable the observer to quickly summarize a communication event, such as ‘Surgery Attending  Scrub Tech  Requesting  Tools’, ‘Surgery Resident  Medical Student  Teaching  Camera’, etc. The observer also has the ability to type in free-hand notes at any time. All of these events are time-stamped and synchronized with the AV recordings (if any) using a method described further below. We have also experimented with creating a ‘union’ of the two scorers’ data les, such that if one observer marked communication events that the other did not or vice versa, a more complete data set would result by joining the two data les and eliminating any that are the ‘same’, with the ability to also measure inter- rater agreement on those that were an interpretation of the ‘same’ communication event (Shin 2003). In other words, the moving window alignment algorithm automatically detects the ‘same’ conversations that were encoded so that a union of the two data sets can be made, and inter-rater agreement can be measured on just the intersection. Interestingly, in our second operating room study, RATE was used as part of the Independent variable, which was the training of crew resource management skills. Thus, RATE was used to help train surgeons on their team communication and coordination skills. In this longitudinal study, the dependent variables were composed of answers to a questionnaire distributed to all team members immediately following each case. Improvements over time in questionnaire scores was the method for measuring impact (Guerlain et al. 2008). This method of measuring team performance has several advantages, including ease of collection, increased power (due to all team members rating the team performance, one case gets seven or so ratings) and no need to train observers on a team scoring metric. Data Collection System We list here the set of equipment used for the operating room studies along with some details about how and when it is used. Researchers can choose to use less recording equipment, depending on their methodological needs. Rolling cart. This cart stores all of the equipment listed below (except the two scoring laptops). It is rolled into the operating room, placed in the corner of the room to the left of the anaesthesia monitor to be most out of the way, the AV equipment is set up and recording is started prior to the patient’s arrival. After the patient leaves, recording is stopped, the AV equipment is taken down and the cart is rolled out. Four Pentium III computers, each with a video capture card, corresponding video compression software and a large hard drive. These computers are placed on the bottom half of the cart. Each video card and corresponding • • RATE 121 software automatically compresses one video feed (laparoscopic image view, table view, anaesthesia monitor view or room view) and two audio feeds. Upon playback, we can thus view all four videos and hear all conversations, or selectively mute any of the four pairs of audio feeds. One LCD monitor, mouse, keyboard and switcher. These are placed on the top half of the cart. The switcher enables switching the control of the monitor, keyboard and mouse among the four computers. Eight Shure wireless microphones (each on a different frequency). The receivers are placed on the top of the cart, to the right and left of the LCD monitor, with each audio feed going into one of the stereo (left/right) audio input lines of the video capture cards on the four computers. The lapel microphones are placed on staff as they arrive. For the surgeons, the lapel receiver is clipped onto the front of the scrub top, with the wire running over the shoulder, taped to the back of the scrub top, and the microphone itself is turned on and placed into the pocket of the scrub bottom. This is done before the surgeon scrubs and has a gown put on. A video cable is directly connected from the output jack on the back of the laparoscopic monitor to the laparoscopic view recording computer, thus enabling video capture of the laparoscopic image. One high denition digital camera (requires running cabling to it), which has remote pan/tilt/zoom capabilities and can handle the bright lights vs. dark room changes that occur during surgery is installed on one of the booms over the operating table to get a ‘table’ (operating area) view. Each boom in our operating rooms now has Velcro placed in the correct spot, as does the back of the camera. Due to the camera’s weight, we also use surgical tape to secure the camera in place prior to each surgery. The camera is adjusted using the remote pan/tilt/zoom capability such that just the abdominal area is in view and the cable is secured out of the way using surgical tape along the boom and runs under the anaesthesia monitor etc. to get to our cart, and is plugged into the video capture card of the table view recording computer. A digital-to-analogue scan converter. This is an off-the-shelf product that can be used to ‘split’ the video feed of any computer monitor. We use it to get a video capture of the anaesthesiologist’s computer screen, the analogue output of which is connected to the anaesthesia view recording computer (which then digitizes the analogue input). One wireless video camera (low resolution but extremely small and portable, we use this to get a ‘room view’ of the operating room). All of our operating suites now have Velcro on the upper corner of the wall, and we have Velcro on the back of the wireless video camera such that we can quickly place this camera prior to a surgery. The receiver is on the top of the cart. One person climbs onto a stool to place the video camera and a second person looks at the output on the room view recording computer so that the person placing the camera knows at what angle to point the camera (as it has no remote pan/tilt features). • • • • • • Safer Surgery 122 Two laptop computers, each running the RATE event-marking software. We have two people observe each case live and manually ‘mark’ events of interest using predened categories of information described further in the next section. The observers stand on one or two steps to get a better view, and are behind the attending, on the surgeon’s left side. Two headsets. These are worn by the observers to enable hearing all conversations. One eight-jack local area network (LAN) hub, which enables all four computers to have internet access through one ethernet cable. We also use this hub to connect external computers (e.g., the laptops we use to manually mark events of interest when observing the case) to the four recording computers. Thus, to summarize, we designate the audio-video input to the four computers as follows: For the laparoscopic image computer, we capture the image coming off the laparoscopic camera (using a video cable), along with the surgery attending’s and surgery resident’s voices (using one pair of Shure wireless microphones). For the table view computer, we capture video taken from just above the operating table (using a high-denition video camera). On this view, we capture the voices of the scrub tech and camera operator using a second pair of Shure wireless microphones. For the anaesthesia monitor computer, we capture the video from the anaesthesiologist’s monitor (using a scan converter) along with the voices of the anaesthetist(s) using a third pair of Shure wireless microphones. For the room view computer, we capture an overall room video, taken from high up in the corner of the OR (using a wireless video camera) and, on this view, we capture the circulating nurse’s voice along with any ‘extra’ person in the room using the nal pair of Shure wireless microphones. The observers set up and take down all equipment, and then make live observations using the RATE event-marking software. General Setup Procedure Our method of synchronizing the four audio-video les and the observers’ event database le require that four activities take place. First, we manually synchronize the four Pentium III computers’ clocks prior to each recording session (e.g., the morning before a case), to an external time server, which we do by using a software tool, available for free download from <www.arachnoid.com/abouttime/>. Second, once all equipment is set up, we start compressing/recording the laparoscopic view rst, as this is the reference recording time from which the other three computers’ recording times are offset upon playback. • • • • • • • • RATE 123 Third, once the four audio-video feeds are up and running (e.g., all the above equipment is set up and each computer is recording/compressing their respective audio-video inputs), we start the RATE event-marking software, set the ‘start time’ to approximately 30 seconds ahead of the currently counting up recording time on the laparoscopic view, and then hit ‘Start’ on the RATE event-marking software just as the recording time on the laparoscopic view reaches the just-entered start time. The RATE event-marking software will then ‘count up’ from the start time; this counting up time remains approximately in sync with the counting up time of the laparoscopic view. This enables the time stamps captured with the RATE event-marking software to be synchronized with the four video feeds upon playback (all computers’ clocks are slightly different, so the two recording laptops and laparoscopic video capture time will eventually go out of sync, but not by more than a few seconds by the end of the case). Finally, all software les are named with a unique ID for that case, followed by a description of the le (e.g., 6134_LapView.mpg, 6134_TableView.mpg, 6134_AnesthView.mpg and 6134_RoomView.mpg for the four AV les and 6134_ Observer1.mdb, 6134_Observer2.mdb for the two observers’ database les). Thus, when running the playback software, one can select the appropriate observer data le (e.g., 6134_Observer1.mdb) and know which four video les to load along with that le (e.g., 6134_LapView.mpg, 6134_TableView.mpg, 6134_AnesthView. mpg, and 6134_RoomView.mpg). In our studies, we had two observers recording but designated one as the ‘primary’ observer, and used this person’s log le for debrieng purposes immediately following the case. Some work was done later to measure inter-rater agreement of the two observers etc. as described above. Of note, upon playback, we run the four video using the LAN hub. The playback software just opens and plays the videos directly from their location on the recording computers. In other words, we avoid the extensive time it would take to copy the videos to a single computer. Thus, we can review the case immediately, which is how we are able to debrief the surgeons on their crew resource management and/or non-technical skills in a breakout room during the time between cases (see Figure 8.1). We tear down the equipment as soon as the patient is wheeled out of the room, store it on the cart, wheel the cart to the break-out room and meet the surgeons there once they are nished dictating the case. (In our studies, the surgery attending always attended the debriefs and sometimes the surgery resident joined as well. The other team members are busy during this change-over time). The RATE Playback Software Both the ‘event marking’ and ‘playback’ components of RATE are programmed using Visual Basic 6.0 (VB). The time-stamped events are stored in an Access database. RATE playback is used to synchronize the four video feeds upon playback by offsetting the start of each video based on the time the videos were encoded. . operations. Surgery 142, 102–110. de Leval, M.R., Carthey, J., Wright, D.J., and Reason, J.T. (2000) Human factors and cardiac surgery: A multicenter study. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. cholecystectomy. Archives of Surgery 139, 1 215 20. Undre, S., Sevdalis, N., Healey, A.N., Darzi, A. and Vincent, C.A. (2007) Observational Teamwork Assessment for Surgery (OTAS): Renement and. Safer Surgery 114 detail while being practical, inexpensive and easy to use, and that describe more