ArticleJournal of patient safety2026
Work as Imagined Versus Work as Done: A Usability Evaluation of an RFO Sponge-counting System in Real Operating Room Conditions.
Article in Journal of patient safety, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesRetained foreign objects are surgical items accidentally left inside the patient after skin closure at the end of an operation. The surgical count is the primary method for preventing retained foreign objects, and surgical sponge detection devices are increasingly used to aid in prevention. The objective of this study was to investigate usability, functionality, and user responses to 1 such sponge accounting device.
methodsInteractions with the sponge accounting device were directly observed during 17 surgical procedures (including laparoscopic, cesarean section, and general surgery). Data was collected quantitatively through a categorical time study and the System Usability Scale, in conjunction with qualitative ad hoc in situ interview data.
resultsThirteen participants completed the System Usability Scale, and the average score of the device was M=58, indicating marginally acceptable usability. Other findings included concerns with the efficiency and reliability of the accounting device, especially with heavily soiled sponges, and variability in its use.
conclusionsThis "in the wild" evaluation of the device revealed challenges with its intended use in a busy surgical environment. This work adds to the literature in that it highlights the importance of appreciating the challenge of integrating new technology into a busy health care environment, as well as the value of completing usability testing before device implementation.
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.