Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26487205›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2016

Where are my instruments? Hazards in delivery of surgical instruments.

Annetje C P Guédon, Linda S G L Wauben, Anne C van der Eijk, Alex S N Vernooij, Frédérique C Meeuwsen, Maarten van der Elst, Vivian Hoeijmans, Jenny Dankelman, John J van den Dobbelsteen

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Image-based recognition of surgical instruments by means of convolutional neural networks.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2023
    Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Annetje C P GuédonDepartment of BioMechanical Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Mekelweg 2, 2628 CD, Delft, The Netherlands. A.C.P.Guedon@tudelft.nl.
Linda S G L WaubenDepartment of BioMechanical Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Mekelweg 2, 2628 CD, Delft, The Netherlands.
Anne C van der EijkLeiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Alex S N VernooijLeiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Frédérique C MeeuwsenDepartment of BioMechanical Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Mekelweg 2, 2628 CD, Delft, The Netherlands.
Maarten van der ElstReinier de Graaf Groep, Reinier de Graafweg 3-11, 2625 AD, Delft, The Netherlands.
Vivian HoeijmansReinier de Graaf Groep, Reinier de Graafweg 3-11, 2625 AD, Delft, The Netherlands.
Jenny DankelmanDepartment of BioMechanical Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Mekelweg 2, 2628 CD, Delft, The Netherlands.
John J van den DobbelsteenDepartment of BioMechanical Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Mekelweg 2, 2628 CD, Delft, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnavailability of instruments is recognised to cause delays and stress in the operating room, which can lead to additional risks for the patients. The aim was to provide an overview of the hazards in the entire delivery process of surgical instruments and to provide insight into how Information Technology (IT) could support this process in terms of information availability and exchange.

methodsThe process of delivery was described according to the Healthcare Failure Mode and Effects Analysis methodology for two hospitals. The different means of information exchange and availability were listed. Then, hazards were identified and further analysed for each step of the process.

resultsFor the first hospital, 172 hazards were identified, and 23 of hazards were classified as high risk. Only one hazard was considered as 'controlled' (when actions were taken to remove the hazard later in the process). Twenty-two hazards were 'tolerated' (when no actions were taken, and it was therefore accepted that adverse events may occur). For the second hospital, 158 hazards were identified, and 49 of hazards were classified as high risk. Eight hazards were 'controlled' and 41 were 'tolerated'. The means for information exchange and information systems were numerous for both cases, while there was not one system that provided an overview of all relevant information.

conclusionsThe majority of the high-risk hazards are expected to be controlled by the use of IT support. Centralised information and information availability for different parties reduce risks related to unavailability of instruments in the operating room.

Indexed as

Healthcare Failure Mode and Effect AnalysisHospitalsHumansMedical InformaticsOperating RoomsOrganization and AdministrationRisk AssessmentSterilizationSurgical InstrumentsInformation technologyLogisticsRisk analysisSafetySurgical instruments

Identifiers

PMID26487205
PMCPMC4912587

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.