Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39886647›Full record

ArticleSurgery open science2024

Surgical instrument tray optimization process at a university hospital: A comprehensive overview.

Peter Rubak, Ann-Eva Christensen, Mads Granlie, Karin Bundgaard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Surgery open science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Peter RubakClinical Nursing Research Unit, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
Ann-Eva ChristensenUnit for Psychiatric Research, North Denmark Region, Aalborg, Denmark.
Mads GranlieAcquisition and Logistics Organization, process and digitalization department, Denmark.
Karin BundgaardClinical Nursing Research Unit, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This study presents the results of a surgical instrument tray optimization process implemented across all surgical specialties within the largest university hospital in Denmark. Methods: Data was extracted from a comprehensive instrument optimization process including all Operating Rooms at Aarhus University Hospital. Adopting a holistic perspective, the optimization process, involved aligning instrument trays across various surgical specialties. This included: a) Reduction in number of instruments, b) Consolidation or separation of trays, c) Modularization - introducing modular trays for specific purposes, and d) Standardization - standardizing commonly used instruments across specialties. Instruments per tray, total number of instruments, and changes in the number of trays were compared against existing tray contents to identify discipline-specific changes. Results: Some specialties made substantial alterations to tray structures, while others primarily reduced number of instruments in existing trays. Across all specialties, optimization resulted in 17 % decrease in number of tray types ( Conclusion: This study underscores complexity of instrument tray design. The approach employed at Aarhus University Hospital, involving interdisciplinary experts in an iterative design process, demonstrated the feasibility of redesigning instrument trays with significant reduction in content. Additionally, data suggests that reducing the number of instruments could lead to a decrease in workload within the Central Sterile Supply Specialty. This presents opportunity to minimize wasted resources and streamlining cleaning processes for unused instruments.

Indexed as

Healthcare costsQuality improvementResource utilizationSurgical instrument tray optimization

Identifiers

PMID39886647
PMCPMC11780382

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.