Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36545177›Full record

ArticleCureus2022

The Hidden Burden of Equipment Failure in Endoscopy: Uncovered and Improved With Digital Technology.

Anushri Halai, Zameer Mohamed, Pushpakaran Munuswamy, Ashish Kalraiya

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Anushri HalaiEmergency Medicine, Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust, London, GBR.
Zameer MohamedNutrition, Imperial College London, London, GBR.
Pushpakaran MunuswamyGastroenterology, Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust, London, GBR.
Ashish KalraiyaStrategy and Improvement, Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust, London, GBR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective A growing and ageing population combined with severe disruptions across endoscopy services throughout the United Kingdom (UK) during the recent pandemic has accelerated the backlog of patients awaiting endoscopic procedures. This places increased pressure to improve service efficiencies in an attempt to reduce this growing burden. Moreover, beyond repair costs, the full impact of faulty endoscopes on services is not well documented. This study aimed to outline tasks performed to traditionally report a broken endoscope; measure the impact on staff time, efficiency costs and staff morale; and report outcomes of staff experience and productivity when replacing traditional reporting with a digital reporting tool.  Methods This study was conducted over six months at three endoscopy units. Cognitive-task analysis (CTA) and a time-motion study (TMS) were performed to process map all traditional tasks when an endoscope breaks, and again after a digital reporting tool was implemented. Two staff surveys were conducted. Data was aggregated to determine the overall impact and model efficiency costs. Results With traditional processes, on average one faulty endoscope generated 54 tasks, consuming 8 hours 53 minutes of staff time or £325 in efficiency costs, with 60% of staff reporting a negative effect on morale. In comparison, digital reporting generated 41 tasks, consuming 4 hours 31 minutes of time or £147 in efficiency costs, resulting in £45,468 saved annually. Furthermore, 95% of staff said their morale improved, and environmentally all paper-based processes were removed. Conclusion This study demonstrated the immense hidden burden of faulty endoscopes. Given the current challenges to endoscopy recovery, digital reporting tools may present an attractive means to minimise disruption to endoscopy services driven through improved equipment maintenance.

Indexed as

cognitive task analysisdigital reporting toolefficiency costsendoscopytime motion study

Identifiers

PMID36545177
PMCPMC9761334

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.