ArticleImplementation science communications2025
Streamlining surgical instrument counting: a matrixed multiple case study on the fidelity of weighing systems in the operating room.
Article in Implementation science communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany technologies have been developed to aid in surgical instrument counting, but wide adoption is rare. A technology that has been widely adopted around 20 years ago is the weighing scale. Lessons can be extracted from its sustainment and fidelity, and applied to the development and implementation of new laboursaving technologies in healthcare.
methodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with experienced staff in four hospitals that use weighing systems in their surgical instrument cycle, which we analysed according to the Matrixed Multiple Case Study (MMCS) methodology. Hospitals were designated a low, medium, or high sustainment and fidelity score, after which influencing factors were identified. These factors were categorised according to the i-PARIHS domains of Innovation, Recipient, Context, and Facilitation. Within-site analysis and cross-site analysis was performed to identify influencing factors associated with a high or low level of sustainment or fidelity.
resultsAll hospitals showed a high sustainment. Two hospitals showed low fidelity, and two showed high fidelity. Twenty-one total influencing factors were identified, divided among all i-PARIHS domains. All hospitals experienced similar limitations of the technology, and all hospitals showed signs of facilitation efforts during the implementation phase. In low-fidelity hospitals, interdepartmental coordination and trust in technology were limited, in contrast to high-fidelity hospitals. A large and/or complex surgical instrument inventory hindered fidelity of the weighing system.
conclusions20 years after implementation, there is varying success concerning the fidelity of weighing systems for surgical instrument counting. All participating hospitals have adapted their workflow to the limitations of the technology in different ways. Given the relative straight-forwardness of weighing scales as a technology, our findings underline the complexity of implementation processes, regardless of the complexity of the innovation.
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.