Operating room event analysis.

J S McDonald; S F Peterson; J Hansell

PubMed · 6855646

Operating room event analysis.

Abstract

A time/motion study performed in the Department of Anesthesiology at Ohio State University divided intraoperative events into three categories: (1) patient-centered, direct--activities that direct the anesthesiologist's attention to the patient; (2) patient-centered, indirect--observation of equipment or data related to patient status; and (3) non-patient-centered--activities that direct the anesthesiologist's attention away from the patient. Surprisingly, results of this study did not differ greatly from those of earlier investigators, who found that the anesthesiologist was distracted from the patient 46% of the time. Future studies and monitor development should address this problem by reducing non-patient-centered activities and distractions to the anesthesiologist during surgery.

Explore related subjects

Anesthesia Department, Hospital Anesthesiology Attention Hospital Bed Capacity, 500 and over Humans Interprofessional Relations Intraoperative Complications Ohio Operating Rooms Risk Management Time and Motion Studies Journal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

J S McDonald, S F Peterson, J Hansell. Operating room event analysis.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6855646/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed1995

Denial of effective treatment and poor quality of clinical information in placebo controlled trials of ondansetron for postoperative nausea and vomiting: a review of published trials.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how many patients were deprived of treatment by being given placebo as comparator in trials of ondansetron for postoperative nausea and vomiting. DESIGN: Review of published trials of ondansetron during 1991 to July 1994. SETTING: Medline search in a university department of anaesthesia. SUBJECTS: 8806 patients who had been included in 18 indexed placebo controlled trials of ondansetron as prophylaxis against or treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting. RESULTS: Five studies (1236 patients) had been published by July 1992. All were placebo controlled trials. By July 1994, 8806 patients had been included in 18 indexed placebo controlled studies of prophylaxis or treatment. Only 462 patients had been in studies that compared ondansetron with other drugs, and there were no indexed comparative trials of treatment of nausea and vomiting. Roughly 2180 patients had been given placebo as prophylaxis and 440 had been given placebo when already experiencing postoperative nausea or vomiting. CONCLUSIONS: Around 2620 patients in the reviewed studies were denied existing drugs, which, though not completely effective or without side effects, do bring some relief from postoperative nausea and vomiting. Drug regulatory bodies should collaborate with drug companies to ensure better comparison of new with established drugs. This would avoid placebos being given to more than the fewest patients necessary to confirm effect and would allow doctors to be informed more quickly about relative efficacies.

Anesthesia Department, Hospital↗

PubMed1995

No breathing room in the anesthesia turf battle.

Anesthesiologists and nurse anesthetists have always jostled each other for work, but managed care and policy changes have brought tensions to a boil. Is the anesthesia battle a harbinger of the future?

Anesthesia Department, Hospital↗

PubMed1995

Airway management practices in emergency medicine residencies.

The Core Content for Emergency Medicine (EM) recommends that all emergency physicians be trained to manage the airway, including administering paralytic agents for endotracheal intubation. This study analyzed compliance with the recommendations by reviewing airway management practices at EM residencies. All 96 EM residency directors were sent a 10-item survey characterizing airway management practices at residency-affiliated emergency departments (EDs). The 91 respondents (95%) represented residencies with 120 affiliated hospitals. Paralytic agents routinely were used during intubations in 114 of the EDs (95%). Forty-nine of the Eds (41%) never requested an anesthesiologist for intubations, and 8 Eds (7%) mandated anesthesiology presence during paralytic agent administration. The Department of Anesthesiology never performed quality assurance (QA) evaluations in at least 64 EDs (53%). The Department of Emergency Medicine performed QA checks less than two thirds of the time in at least 44 EDs (36%). The majority of EM residencies are complying with the Core Content recommendations by actively performing intubations using paralytic agents. Anesthesiologists are infrequently consulted in residency-affiliated EDs. Quality assurance of ED intubations is not rigorously monitored by emergency and anesthesiology departments.

Anesthesia Department, Hospital↗