Surgical innovation · 2023
Design and Early Evaluation of a Device to Improve the Sharp Count Process in Operating Rooms.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Oliveira Mariana, E Silva Gabriel Delage, Zancul Eduardo
Аннотация
NEED: Counting surgical sharps in surgeries mitigates the risk of retained surgical items in patients. Current procedures rely on manual counts throughout and at the end of each surgery. The manual count is lengthy, burdensome, and carries the risk of injuries.
TECHNICAL SOLUTION: This paper presents the design and early evaluation of a technology aid to automatize the sharps' counting process; it is composed of a shell holding a set of optical sensors that count needles that pass through the shell's top slot.
PROOF OF CONCEPT: The device was tested with needles originating from 20 surgeries. Users surveyed reported a decrease in counting time and perceived injury risk. The average count error was 4.4%, indicating the need to continue advancing the technology.
NEXT STEPS: The counting technology needs to be refined to increase accuracy, and a user guide for the equipment must be prepared. Thereafter, a new set of trials must be performed.
CONCLUSION: Our work provides a detailed requirements list for developing a technology aid to improve the needle count process and investigates one possible technological route to address this problem.
TECHNICAL SOLUTION: This paper presents the design and early evaluation of a technology aid to automatize the sharps' counting process; it is composed of a shell holding a set of optical sensors that count needles that pass through the shell's top slot.
PROOF OF CONCEPT: The device was tested with needles originating from 20 surgeries. Users surveyed reported a decrease in counting time and perceived injury risk. The average count error was 4.4%, indicating the need to continue advancing the technology.
NEXT STEPS: The counting technology needs to be refined to increase accuracy, and a user guide for the equipment must be prepared. Thereafter, a new set of trials must be performed.
CONCLUSION: Our work provides a detailed requirements list for developing a technology aid to improve the needle count process and investigates one possible technological route to address this problem.