Paediatric anaesthesia · 2023
An exploratory study of distractions during the induction phase of pediatric procedural sedation with propofol.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Boriosi Juan P, Eickhoff Jens C, Bryndzia Christina, Peters Megan, Hollman Gregory A
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Distractions are a leading cause of disturbance to workflow during medical care. Distractions affecting the anesthetic team in the operating room are frequent and have a negative impact on patient care one-fifth of the time. The objective of this study was to evaluate the frequency, source, target, and impact of distractions during the induction phase of pediatric procedural sedation outside the operating room.
METHODS: Distractions were analyzed during propofol induction for oncology procedures from 45 video recordings. Distraction was defined as any event that disturbs or has potential to disturb the sedation team from performing their primary tasks. The type of distraction was cataloged into communication, coordination, extraneous events, equipment, layout, and usability. A five-point Likert scale was used to quantify the impact on the sedation team or its members.
RESULTS: All patients had a diagnosis of acute lymphocytic leukemia and had a mean age of 8.4 years. Five hundred and sixty-seven distractions occurred and averaged 12.6 events (±5.6) per induction (mean induction time 3 min 12 s). Extraneous events were most common, accounting for 55% (312/567) of all distractions. Most distractions had an impact on the sedation team's workflow, resulting in multitasking (46%, n = 262), and in either brief or complete disruption from a primary task (17%). Sedation nurses were impacted most often, 62% of the time. Coordination and usability issues resulted in the greatest negative impact, mean ± SD, 3.7 ± 1.0 and 3.5 ± 0.9, respectively. There was no significant association between distractions and adverse events or induction length.
DISCUSSION: Distractions are common during procedural sedation, with extraneous events being most frequent. Coordination issues within the team and usability problems had the greatest negative impact on sedation team workflow. Nurses were the most frequent target.
CONCLUSION: Distractions impacted sedation team workflow but had no association with patient outcomes.
METHODS: Distractions were analyzed during propofol induction for oncology procedures from 45 video recordings. Distraction was defined as any event that disturbs or has potential to disturb the sedation team from performing their primary tasks. The type of distraction was cataloged into communication, coordination, extraneous events, equipment, layout, and usability. A five-point Likert scale was used to quantify the impact on the sedation team or its members.
RESULTS: All patients had a diagnosis of acute lymphocytic leukemia and had a mean age of 8.4 years. Five hundred and sixty-seven distractions occurred and averaged 12.6 events (±5.6) per induction (mean induction time 3 min 12 s). Extraneous events were most common, accounting for 55% (312/567) of all distractions. Most distractions had an impact on the sedation team's workflow, resulting in multitasking (46%, n = 262), and in either brief or complete disruption from a primary task (17%). Sedation nurses were impacted most often, 62% of the time. Coordination and usability issues resulted in the greatest negative impact, mean ± SD, 3.7 ± 1.0 and 3.5 ± 0.9, respectively. There was no significant association between distractions and adverse events or induction length.
DISCUSSION: Distractions are common during procedural sedation, with extraneous events being most frequent. Coordination issues within the team and usability problems had the greatest negative impact on sedation team workflow. Nurses were the most frequent target.
CONCLUSION: Distractions impacted sedation team workflow but had no association with patient outcomes.