The British journal of surgery · 2026
Making the operating room (OR) work: sociomaterial study of ergonomics in the OR.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Mah Alexis, Kalocsai Csilla, Alam Fahad, Karim Allia, Larouche Jeremie, Hallbeck M Susan, Cohen Tara, Ding Anna, Armah Jessica, Hallet Julie, SORE Research Group
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Poor operating room (OR) ergonomics poses risk of injury to OR staff, worsening patient outcomes and threatening workforce wellness and sustainability. How OR staff navigate ergonomic barriers in the interdisciplinary team environment was examined in this qualitative study.
METHODS: Semi-structured, open-ended interviews of surgeons, anaesthesiologists, and OR nurses were conducted at a single institution using a sociomaterial approach with interview-to-the-double. Transcripts were coded by two independent researchers. Themes in the data were outlined using the System Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) 2.0 framework.
RESULTS: Five major themes were identified. First, physical environment issues creating cognitive and physical frictions, such as tripping hazards and poor room layouts. Second, influence of social positionality, with hierarchy by role and experience and social dynamics leading to a differential capacity to adjust. Third, team collaboration, with lack of interdisciplinary work and communication and high staff turnover. Fourth, burden of self-initiated workarounds, outlining conflicts between system/organizational issues and individual solutions. Fifth, institutional support, with lack of leadership engagement. Participants suggested solutions including accommodations to foster a collaborative approach to managing discomfort in the OR and new team communication tools.
CONCLUSION: Ergonomic barriers were described within the work system of the SEIPS 2.0 framework. Social positionality and differential levels of agency, as well as lack of team collaboration and misperceptions of others' roles, were central to ergonomic challenges. Conflicts between problems lying with the system/organization and solutions being left to individuals were also central to challenges to optimal OR ergonomics.
METHODS: Semi-structured, open-ended interviews of surgeons, anaesthesiologists, and OR nurses were conducted at a single institution using a sociomaterial approach with interview-to-the-double. Transcripts were coded by two independent researchers. Themes in the data were outlined using the System Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) 2.0 framework.
RESULTS: Five major themes were identified. First, physical environment issues creating cognitive and physical frictions, such as tripping hazards and poor room layouts. Second, influence of social positionality, with hierarchy by role and experience and social dynamics leading to a differential capacity to adjust. Third, team collaboration, with lack of interdisciplinary work and communication and high staff turnover. Fourth, burden of self-initiated workarounds, outlining conflicts between system/organizational issues and individual solutions. Fifth, institutional support, with lack of leadership engagement. Participants suggested solutions including accommodations to foster a collaborative approach to managing discomfort in the OR and new team communication tools.
CONCLUSION: Ergonomic barriers were described within the work system of the SEIPS 2.0 framework. Social positionality and differential levels of agency, as well as lack of team collaboration and misperceptions of others' roles, were central to ergonomic challenges. Conflicts between problems lying with the system/organization and solutions being left to individuals were also central to challenges to optimal OR ergonomics.