Ameliyat öncesi cerrahi strateji toplantısı uygulamasının postoperatif sonuçlar üzerine etkisi

Year 2022, , 694 - 701, 01.10.2022

Emre Bozkurt , Sinan Ömeroğlu , Mert Tanal , Emre Özoran , İbrahim Halil Özata , Cemal Kaya

https://doi.org/10.31362/patd.1083809

Abstract

Amaç: İyatrojenik yaralanmalar konusunda farkındalık arttıkça, cerrahi kalite gelişimi konusunda ilgi artmaktadır. Bu yaralanmalar artan organizasyonel güvenlik kültürü ile önlenebilmektedir. Hastanemizde, ameliyat sonrası sonuçlanımları geliştirmek için klinik ve ameliyathanede cerrahi strateji toplantısı şablonu oluşturulmuştur.
Bu çalışmada ameliyat öncesi cerrahi strateji toplantosı şablonu uygulanan ve uygulanmayan hastaları karşılaştırmak için düzenlenmiştir.
Gereç ve yöntem: Hastalarn demografik verileri, ameliyat verileri ve ameliyat öncesi cerrahi strateji toplantısı verileri retrospektif olarak toplandı. Hastalar ameliyat öncesi cerrahi strateji toplantısı şablonu (PSSM) uygulama durumuna göre iki gruba ayrıldı. Grup 1’deki PSSM’si olan hastaları, grup 2 diğer hastaları içermektedir. İki gruptaki cerrahi prosedürle ilgili veriler ve hastaların sonuçları karşılaştırılmıştır.
Bulgular: Çalışmaya 140 hasta dahil edilmiştir. Hastaların ortalama yaşı 45,28±17 idi. Çalışmaya katılan hastaların kadın erkek oranı 62:78 idi. Hastalar PSSM’nin uygulanma statüsüne göre gruplandılar. Ortanca yaş (p=0,966), cinsiyet (p=1), ameliyat tipi (acil veya elektif p=0,323) ve açık cerrahiye geçme oranları (p=0.295) arasında istatistiksel olarak farklılık saptanmadı. Grup 2’de hastaların dosyalarının ameliyathanede ameliyat öncesi hazır bulunma oranı Grup 1’e oranlar istatistiksel olarka anlamlı derecede düşüktü (p=0,021). Grup 1’deki hastaların ameliyat süreleri istatistiksel olarak anlamlı derecede kısaydı (p<0,001).
Sonuç: Bu davranışsal girişimin klinikte rutin olarak uygulanması hasta sonuçlarında iyileşme, güvenlik prosedürlerin uyumu arttırmaktadır.

Keywords

Kontrol listesi, İyatrojenik yaralanmalar, cerrahi kalite iyileştirme, güvenli cerrahi, strateji toplantısı

The importance of a preoperative surgical strategy meeting for good patient outcomes

Abstract

Objective:
Interest in measures to surgical quality improvement is increasing with increased awareness of iatrogenic injuries. These injuries can be prevented by an improved organisational safety habit. We implemented preoperative surgical strategy meeting chart in the clinical and operational basis in our hospital to improve postoperative outcomes.
This study was conducted as comparement of outcomes of patients with and without implementation of preoperative surgical strategy meeting forms.
Methods:
Data including the demographic characteristics of patients, procedural data, and data of preoperative surgical strategy meeting were recorded retrospectively. Patients were divided into two groups according to the preoperative surgical strategy meeting chart application status. Group 1 included the patients with provided PSSM and group 2 included the remaining patients. Data related with surgical procedure and patients’ outcomes were compared between these groups.
Results:
One hundred and forty patients were enrolled in this study. The mean age of the patients was 45.28±17 years. The female to male ratio was 62:78. Patients were grouped according to the application status of PSSM. There was no statistically significant difference in the mean age, sex, operation type (emergent or elective) and conversion to open surgery rates. In Group 2 being ready of patient file in the operating theatre preoperatively was statistically significantly low when compared to Group 1(p=0.021). Operation time was detected statistically significant short for patients in Group 1(p<0.001).
Conclusion:
Integrating this behavioural intervention into the clinical routine demonstrated the improvements in patient outcomes and adherence to the safety process.

Keywords

Checklist, Iatrogenic injury, quality improvement, safe surgery, surgical meeting

References

• 1. Witiw CD, Smieliauskas F, Fehlings MG. Health Economics and the Management of Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2018 Jan;29(1):169-76.
• 2. Lu Y, Qureshi SA. Cost-effective studies in spine surgeries: a narrative review. The Spine Journal: Official Journal of the North American Spine Society. 2014 Nov;14(11):2748-62.
• 3. Safe Surgery. World Health Organization [online]. Available at: https://www.who.int/patientsafety/safesurgery/en/ [Accessed 10 December 2020].
• 4. Department of Health. An organisation with a memory. Report of an expert group on learning from adverse events in the NHS. London: The Stationery Office, 2000.
• 5. Haynes AB, Weiser TG, Berry WR, Lipsitz SR, Breizat AH, Bellinger EP, et al. A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 491–9.
• 6. Pronovost P, Needham D, Berenholtz S, Sinopoli D, Chu H, Cosgrove S, et al. An intervention to decrease catheter-related bloodstream infections in the ICU. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 2725–32.
• 7. Sewell M, Adebibe M, Jayakumar P, Jowett C, Kong K, Vemulapalli K, et al. Use of the WHO surgical safety checklist in trauma and orthopaedic patients. IntOrthop 2011; 35: 897–901.
• 8. Mazzocco K, Petitti DB, Fong KT, Bonacum D, Brookey J, Graham S, et al. Surgical team behaviors and patient outcomes. Am J Surg 2009; 197: 678–85.
• 9. Makary MA, Sexton JB, Freischlag JA, Holzmueller CG, Millman EA, Rowen L, et al. Operating room teamwork among physicians and nurses: teamwork in the eye of the beholder. J Am Coll Surg 2006; 202: 746–52.
• 10. Implementation manual surgical safety checklist. World Health Organization [online].Availableat:http://www.who.int/patientsafety/safesurgery/tools_resources/SSSL_Manual_finalJun08.pdf?ua=1 [Accessed 27 Oct 2017].
• 11. Acaroglu R, Sendir M. Pressure ulcer prevention and management strategies in Turkey. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2005 Jul-Aug;32(4):230-7. doi: 10.1097/00152192-200507000-00007. PMID: 16030462.
• 12. NPSA, WHO Surgical Safety Checklist [online]. Available at: http://www.nrls.npsa.nhs.uk/EasySiteWeb/getresource.axd?AssetID=61388&type=full&servicetype=Attachment [Accessed 27 Oct 2017].
• 13. Weiser TG, Haynes AB, Dziekan G, Berry WR, Lipsitz SR, Gawande AA, et al. Effect of a 19-item Surgical Safety Checklist During Urgent Operations in a Global Patient Population. Annals of Surgery 2010; 251: 976-80.
• 14. Paull DE, Mazzia LM, Wood SD, Theis MS, Robinson LD, Carney B, et al. Briefing guide study: preoperative briefing and postoperative debriefing checklists in the Veterans Health Administration medical team training program. The American Journal of Surgery 2010; 200 (5): 620-3.
• 15. Buzink SN, van Lier L, de Hingh IHJT, Jakimowicz JJ. Risk-sensitive events during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: the influence of the integrated operating room and preoperative checklist tool. Surgical Endoscopy 2010; 24: 1990-5.
• 16. de Vries EN, Prins HA, Crolla RM, den Outer AJ, van Andel G, van Helden SH, et al. Effect of a comprehensive surgical safety system on patient outcomes. N Engl J Med 2010; 363 (20): 1928-37.
• 17. Lingard L, Regehr G, Cartmill C, Orser B, Espin B, Bohnen J, et al. Evaluation of a preoperative team briefing: a new communication routine results in improved clinical practice. BMJ QualSaf 2011; 20 (6): 475-82.
• 18. Russ S, Rout S, Sevdlias N, Moorthy K, Darzi A, Vincent C. Do Safety Checklists Improve Teamwork and Communication in the Operating Room? A Systematic Review. Ann Surg 2013; 258: 856-71.
• 19. Semel ME, Resch S, Haynes AB, Funk LM, Bader A, Berry WR, et al. Adopting a surgical safety checklist could save money and improve the quality of care in U.S. hospitals. Health Aff (Millwood) 2010; 29(9): 1593-9.
• 20. Borchard A, Schwappach DL, Barbir A, Bezzola P. A systematic review of the effectiveness, compliance, and critical factors for implementation of safety checklists in surgery. Ann Surg 2012; 256 (6): 925-33.
• 21. van Klei WA, Hoff RG, van Aarnhem EE, Simmermacher RK, Regli LP, Kappen TH, et al. Effects of the introduction of the WHO “Surgical Safety Checklist” on in-hospital mortality: a cohort study. Ann Surg 2012; 255(1): 44-9.
• 22. Surci N, Ramera M, Borin A, Marchegiani G, Salvia R, Bassi C; SPaRo Group. Implementation of a strategic preoperative surgical meeting to improve the level of care at a high-volume pancreatic center: a before-after analysis of 1000 consecutive cases. Updates Surg. 2020 Mar;72(1):155-161. doi: 10.1007/s13304-020-00707-8. Epub 2020 Feb 5. PMID: 32026398.
• 23. Kwok AC, Funk LM, Baltaga R, Lipsitz SR, Merry AF, Dziekan G, et al. Implementation of the World Health Organization surgical safety checklist, including introduction of pulse oximetry, in a resource-limited setting. Ann Surg 2013; 257(4): 633-9.
• 24. Urbach DR, Govindarajan A, Saskin R, Wilton AS, Baxter NN. Introduction of surgical safety checklists in Ontario, Canada. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 1029–38.
• 25. Gawande A. When checklists work and when they don’t [online]. Available at: https://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/when-checklists-work-and-when-they-dont/ . The Incidental Economist 15 Mar 2014. [Accessed 27 Oct 2017]
• 26. Kearns RJ, Uppal V, Bonner J, Robertson J, Daniel M, McGrady EM. The introduction of a surgical safety checklist in a tertiary referral obstetric centre. BMJ QualSaf 2011; 20(9): 818–22.
• 27. Garnerin P, Ares M, Huchet A, Clergue F. Verifying patient identity and site of surgery: improving compliance with protocol by audit and feedback. QualSaf Health Care 2008; 17(6): 454–8.
• 28. Bratzler DW, Houck PM, Richards C, Steele L, Dellinger EP, Fry DE, et al. Use of antimicrobial prophylaxis for major surgery: baseline results from the National Surgical Infection Prevention Project. Arch Surg 2005; 140:174–182.
• 29. Nelson RL, Glenny AM, Song F. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for colorectal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;1:CD001181.
• 30. Gawande, A. The Checklist Manifesto: How to get things right. 1st ed. Metropolitan Books of Henry Holt and Co; 2010.