Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS · 2017
How many people work in your operating room? An assessment of factors associated with instrument recounts within plastic surgery.
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.
Reformat Derek D, David Joshua A, Diaz-Siso J Rodrigo, Plana Natalie M, Wang Annie, Brownstone Nicholas D, Ceradini Daniel J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Intraoperative instrument recounts are performed to avoid retained foreign surgical items. These additional counts, however, beget risks of their own, including prolonged operative times, exposure to radiation, and increased cost. Our study aimed to identify factors that increase the likelihood of instrument recounts during plastic surgery procedures, and use our findings to guide potential solutions for preventing unnecessary recounts across all surgical fields.
STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective review of all plastic surgical cases in the main operating setting at New York University Langone Medical Center (NYULMC) between March 2014 and February 2015.
RESULTS: Of 1285 plastic surgery cases, 35 (2.7%) reported a missing instrument necessitating a recount. Of all subspecialties within plastic surgery, only microsurgery conferred an increased risk of a recount event. We identified multiple factors that increased the odds of a recount event, including increased operative time, number of surgical sites, and intraoperative instrument handoffs.
CONCLUSION: Instrument recounts, although designed to prevent inadvertently retained surgical items, present inherent risks of their own. In a large retrospective review of plastic surgery cases at our medical center, we identified many factors that increased the likelihood of an instrument recount. On the basis of our findings and prior literature, we recommend limiting the number of staff handling instrument, the number of handoffs, and a heightened awareness by surgeons and perioperative staff of specific procedures and factors that increase the risk of a miscount event.
STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective review of all plastic surgical cases in the main operating setting at New York University Langone Medical Center (NYULMC) between March 2014 and February 2015.
RESULTS: Of 1285 plastic surgery cases, 35 (2.7%) reported a missing instrument necessitating a recount. Of all subspecialties within plastic surgery, only microsurgery conferred an increased risk of a recount event. We identified multiple factors that increased the odds of a recount event, including increased operative time, number of surgical sites, and intraoperative instrument handoffs.
CONCLUSION: Instrument recounts, although designed to prevent inadvertently retained surgical items, present inherent risks of their own. In a large retrospective review of plastic surgery cases at our medical center, we identified many factors that increased the likelihood of an instrument recount. On the basis of our findings and prior literature, we recommend limiting the number of staff handling instrument, the number of handoffs, and a heightened awareness by surgeons and perioperative staff of specific procedures and factors that increase the risk of a miscount event.