Evaluation of Working Conditions of Robotic Surgery Nurses in Turkey: A Multicenter Study

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to determine the working conditions of the robotic surgery nurses in Turkey. Method: In this descriptive study, data was collected between May 2020 to January 2021. Nurses who were working in robotic surgery for at least one year in 32 hospitals in different eight cities, were included in the study (n=90). Data were collected with the Sociodemographic and Working Conditions Form of Nurses electronically. Results: The mean age of nurses working in the field of robotic surgery was 32.03±6.52 years and 80% of them were female. 50% of the nurses didn’t receive any education about robotic surgery, 50% of the nurses stated that the nursing roles were not clear, 44.4% of the nurses consider their level of knowledge partially sufficient, 58.9% of them did not have a written procedure, 76.7% of them feeling anxious during the surgery. There was a statistically significant difference between the age (p=0.046), gender (p=0.005), marriage (p=0.013), experiencing problem during surgery (p=0.007), self-assessment knowledge (p=0.038), had flow charts/checklists (p=0.010), regular in-service education (p=0.022) and nurses' feeling anxious during surgery. Conclusion: In this study, more than half of robotic surgery nurses experienced problems in during surgery. The most common problems were lack of knowledge, ambiguity of roles and responsibilities, staff shortages and lack of English language skills. It is recommended to develop national and institutional procedures to ensure patient safety in robotic surgery, to eliminate the uncertainty regarding the roles of nurses, to determine nurse competencies and to contribute to the education of nurses in this field.

Keywords

• Operating room
• Robotic surgery
• Robotic surgery nursing
• Technology

Türkiye'de RTürkiye'de Robotik Cerrahi Hemşirelerinin Çalışma Koşullarının Değerlendirilmesi: Çok Merkezli Bir Araştırmaobotik Cerrahi Hemşirelerinin Çalışma Koşullarının Değerlendirilmesi: Çok Merkezli Bir Araştırma

Abstract

Amaç: Bu araştırmanın amacı, Türkiye'deki robotik cerrahi hemşirelerinin çalışma koşullarının belirlenmesidir. Yöntem: Bu tanımlayıcı araştırmada, veriler Mayıs 2020 - Ocak 2021 tarihleri arasında toplandı. Araştırmaya robotik cerrahinin uygulandığı sekiz farklı ildeki 32 hastanede, en az bir yıldır robotik cerrahi alanında çalışan hemşireler dahil edildi (n=90). Veriler “Hemşirelerin Sosyodemografik ve Çalışma Koşulları Formu” kullanılarak elektronik ortamda toplandı. Bulgular: Robotik cerrahi alanında çalışan hemşirelerin yaş ortalaması 32.03±6.52 olup, %80'i kadındır. Hemşirelerin %50'si robotik cerrahi konusunda eğitim almadığını, %50'si hemşirelik rollerinin net olmadığını, %44.4'ü bilgi düzeylerinin kısmen yeterli olduğunu, %58.9'u yazılı prosedürlerinin olmadığını ve %76.7'si cerrahi sırasında anksiyete yaşadıklarını belirtmişlerdir. Yaş (p=0.046), cinsiyet (p=0.005), medeni durum (p=0.013), ameliyat sırasında sorun yaşama (p=0.007), öz değerlendirme bilgisi (p=0.038), akış şeması/kontrol listesi olması (p=0.010), düzenli hizmet içi eğitim alma (p=0.022) ile hemşirelerin ameliyat sırasında anksiyete yaşamaları arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark saptandı. Sonuç: Bu araştırmada robotik cerrahi hemşirelerinin yarısından fazlasının cerrahi sırasında sorun yaşadığı belirlendi. En yaygın yaşanan sorunların hemşirelerin bilgi eksikliği, rol ve sorumlulukların belirsizliği, çalışan eksikliği ve İngilizce dil becerilerinin yetersizliği şeklinde saptandı. Robotik cerrahide hasta güvenliğinin sağlanması için ulusal ve kurumsal prosedürlerin geliştirilmesi, hemşirelerin rollerine ilişkin belirsizliğin giderilmesi, hemşire yetkinliklerinin belirlenmesi ve hemşirelerin bu alandaki eğitimlerine katkı yapılması önerilmektedir.

Keywords

• Ameliyathane
• Robotik cerrahi
• Robotik cerrahi hemşireliği
• Teknoloji

References

1. 1. Ucuzal, M., & Kanan, N. (2014). Robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and nursing care. Florence Nightingale J Nurs, 16(61), 57-64.
2. 2. Alcan, A. O., Soyer, Ö., van Giersbergen, M. Y., Solak, M., & Yoltay, H. E. (2019). Nurses' opinion on robotic surgery. Journal of Health Sciences of Kocaeli University, 5, 5-9.
3. 3. Karamanoğlu, A. Y., & Korkmaz, F. D. (2013). Responsibilities of nurses in robotic heart surgery practices: Review. Turkiye Klinikleri J Nurs Sci, 5(2).
4. 4. Suriaga, A. (2019). Nurse caring: From robotic surgeries to healthcare robots. Int J Hum Caring, 23(2), 178-184.
5. 5. Silveira Thomas Porto, C., & Catal, E. (2021). A comparative study of the opinions, experiences and individual innovativeness characteristics of operating room nurses on robotic surgery. J Adv Nurs, 77(12), 4755-4767.
6. 6. Schuessler, Z., Scott Stiles, A., & Mancuso, P. (2020). Perceptions and experiences of perioperative nurses and nurse anaesthetists in robotic‐assisted surgery. J Clin Nurs, 29(1-2), 60-74.
7. 7. Redondo-Sáenz, D., Cortés-Salas, C., & Parrales-Mora, M. (2023). Perioperative nursing role in robotic surgery: An integrative review. J Perianesth Nurs, 38(4), 636-641.
8. 8. van Brenk, C. M. (2009). Setting up a robotic surgery program: a nurse's perspective. Semin Colon Rectal Surg, 20(4), 162-165

9. 9. Uslu, Y., Altınbaş, Y., Özercan, T., & van Giersbergen, M. Y. (2019). The process of nurse adaptation to robotic surgery: A qualitative study. Int J Med Robot, 15(4),1996.
10. 10. Alemzadeh, H., Raman, J., Leveson, N., Kalbarczyk, Z., & Iyer, R. K. (2016). Adverse events in robotic surgery: a retrospective study of 14 years of FDA data. PLoS ONE, 11(4), e0151470.
11. 11. Allers, J. C., Hussein, A. A., Ahmad, N., Cavuoto, L., Wing, J. F., Hayes, R. M., et al. (2016). Evaluation and impact of workflow interruptions during robot-assisted surgery. Urology, 92, 33-37.
12. 12. McVicar, A. (2003). Workplace stress in nursing: a literature review. J Adv Nurs, 44(6), 633-642.
13. 13. Kang, M., De Gagne, J., & Kang, H. (2016). Perioperative nurses’ work experience with robotic surgery: A focus group study. Comput Inform Nurs, 34(4), 152-158.
14. 14. Çelik, S. (2011). The role of a nurse in robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery. New Medical Journal, 28(2), 83-86.
15. 15. Martins, R. C., Trevilato, D. D., Jost, T., & Caregnato, R. C. A. (2019). Nursing performance in robotic surgeries: integrative review. Rev Bras Enferm, 72, 795-800.
16. 16. Ergin, E., Karaarslan, D., Şahan, S., & Bingöl, Ü. (2023). Can artificial intelligence and robotic nurses replace operating room nurses? The quasi-experimental research. J Robot Surg, 1-9.
17. 17. Raheem, A. A., Song, H. J., Chang, K. D., Choi, Y. D., & Rha, K. H. (2017). Robotic nurse duties in the urology operative room: 11 years of experience. Asian J Urol, 4(2), 116-123.
18. 18. Moloney, R., Coffey, A., Coffey, J. C., & Brien, B. O. (2023). Nurses’ perceptions and experiences of robotic assisted surgery (RAS): an integrative review. Nurse Educ Pract, 103724.
19. 19. Yuh, B. (2013). The bedside assistant in robotic surgery-keys to success. Urol Nurs, 33(1), 29.
20. 20. Camarillo, D., Krummel, T., & Salisbury, J. (2004). Robotic technology in surgery: past, present, and future. Am J Surg, 188(4), 2-15.
21. 21. Stanton, C. (2010). Establishing a robotic surgery program. AORN J, 92(6), 113-115.
22. 22. Francis, P. (2006). The evolution of robotics in surgery and implementing a perioperative robotics nurse specialist role. AORN J, 83(3), 629-650.
23. 23. Ke, Y., Kuo, C., & Hung, C. (2017). The effects of nursing preceptorship on new nurses’ competence, professional socialization, job satisfaction and retention: A systematic review. J Adv Nurs, 73(10), 2296-2305.
24. 24. McAllister, M., Kellenbourn, K., & Wood, D. (2021). The robots are here, but are nurse educators prepared? Collegian, 28(2), 230-235.
25. 25. Smith, J., & Palesy, D. (2018). Technology stress in perioperative nursing: An ongoing concern. Journal of Perioperative Nursing, 31(2), 25-28.