Article3D printing in medicine2022
Using human factors principles to redesign a 3D lab workflow during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in 3D printing in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Log-Level Data-Driven Precision Education Tool for Pediatrics Trainees: Human-Centered Development and Validation Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- The Impact of Pandemic-Driven Care Redesign on Hospital Efficiency.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLike most hospitals, our hospital experienced COVID-19 pandemic-related supply chain shortages. Our additive manufacturing lab's capacity to offset these shortages was soon overwhelmed, leading to a need to improve the efficiency of our existing workflow. We undertook a work system analysis guided by the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) construct which is based on human factors and quality improvement principles. Our objective was to understand the inefficiencies in project submission, review, and acceptance decisions, and make systematic improvements to optimize lab operations.
methodsContextual inquiry (interviews and workflow analysis) revealed suboptimal characteristics of the system, specifically, reliance on a single person to facilitate work and, at times, fractured communication with project sponsors, with root causes related to the project intake and evaluation process as identified through SEIPS tools. As interventions, the analysis led us to: 1) enhance an existing but underused project submission form, 2) design and implement an internal project scorecard to standardize evaluation of requests, and 3) distribute the responsibility of submission evaluation across lab members. We implemented these interventions in May 2021 for new projects and compare them to our baseline February 1, 2018 through - April 30, 2021 performance (1184 days).
resultsAll project requests were submitted using the enhanced project submission form and all received a standardized evaluation with the project scorecard. Prior to interventions, we completed 35/79 (44%) of projects, compared to 12/20 (60%) of projects after interventions were implemented. Time to review new submissions was reduced from an average of 58 days to 4 days. A more distributed team responsibility structure permitted improved workflow with no increase in staffing, allowing the Lab Manager to devote more time to engineering rather than administrative/decision tasks.
conclusionsBy optimizing our workflows utilizing a human factors approach, we improved the work system of our additive manufacturing lab to be responsive to the urgent needs of the pandemic. The current workflow provides insights for labs aiming to meet the growing demand for point-of-care manufacturing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.