John M. A. Bohnen

Communication failures in the operating room: an observational classification of recurrent types and effects

Background: Ineffective team communication is frequently at the root of medical error. The objective of this study was to describe the characteristics of communication failures in the operating room (OR) and to classify their effects. This study was part of a larger project to develop a team checklist to improve communication in the OR. Methods: Trained observers recorded 90 hours of observation during 48 surgical procedures. Ninety four team members participated from anesthesia (16 staff, 6 fellows, 3 residents), surgery (14 staff, 8 fellows, 13 residents, 3 clerks), and nursing (31 staff). Field notes recording procedurally relevant communication events were analysed using a framework which considered the content, audience, purpose, and occasion of a communication exchange. A communication failure was defined as an event that was flawed in one or more of these dimensions. Results: 421 communication events were noted, of which 129 were categorized as communication failures. Failure types included “occasion” (45.7% of instances) where timing was poor; “content” (35.7%) where information was missing or inaccurate, “purpose” (24.0%) where issues were not resolved, and “audience” (20.9%) where key individuals were excluded. 36.4% of failures resulted in visible effects on system processes including inefficiency, team tension, resource waste, workaround, delay, patient inconvenience and procedural error. Conclusion: Communication failures in the OR exhibited a common set of problems. They occurred in approximately 30% of team exchanges and a third of these resulted in effects which jeopardized patient safety by increasing cognitive load, interrupting routine, and increasing tension in the OR.

Getting teams to talk: development and pilot implementation of a checklist to promote interprofessional communication in the OR

Background: Pilot studies of complex interventions such as a team checklist are an essential precursor to evaluating how these interventions affect quality and safety of care. We conducted a pilot implementation of a preoperative team communication checklist. The objectives of the study were to assess the feasibility of the checklist (that is, team members’ willingness and ability to incorporate it into their work processes); to describe how the checklist tool was used by operating room (OR) teams; and to describe perceived functions of the checklist discussions. Methods: A checklist prototype was developed and OR team members were asked to implement it before 18 surgical procedures. A research assistant was present to prompt the participants, if necessary, to initiate each checklist discussion. Trained observers recorded ethnographic field notes and 11 brief feedback interviews were conducted. Observation and interview data were analyzed for trends. Results: The checklist was implemented by the OR team in all 18 study cases. The rate of team participation was 100% (33 vascular surgery team members). The checklist discussions lasted 1–6 minutes (mean 3.5) and most commonly took place in the OR before the patient’s arrival. Perceived functions of the checklist discussions included provision of detailed case related information, confirmation of details, articulation of concerns or ambiguities, team building, education, and decision making. Participants consistently valued the checklist discussions. The most significant barrier to undertaking the team checklist was variability in team members’ preoperative workflow patterns, which sometimes presented a challenge to bringing the entire team together. Conclusions: The preoperative team checklist shows promise as a feasible and efficient tool that promotes information exchange and team cohesion. Further research is needed to determine the sustainability and generalizability of the checklist intervention, to fully integrate the checklist routine into workflow patterns, and to measure its impact on patient safety.

Definition of the role of enterococcus in intraabdominal infection: Analysis of a prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND The role of enterococcus in intraabdominal infection is controversial. This study examines the contribution of enterococcus to adverse outcome in a large intraabdominal infection trial. METHODS A randomized prospective double-blind trial was performed to compare two different antimicrobial regimens in combination with surgical or percutaneous drainage in the treatment of complicated intraabdominal infections. A total of 330 valid patients was enrolled from 22 centers in North America. RESULTS In 330 valid patients, 71 had enterococcus isolated from the initial drainage of an intraabdominal focus of infection. This finding was associated with a significantly higher treatment failure rate than that of patients without enterococcus (28% versus 14%, p < 0.01). In addition, only Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score and presence of enterococcus were significant independent predictors of treatment failure when stepwise logistic regression was performed (p < 0.01 and < 0.03). Risk factors for the presence of enterococcus include age, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II, preinfection hospital length of stay, postoperative infections, and anatomic source of infection. There was no difference between the clinical trial treatment regimens with regard to overall failure, failure associated with enterococcus, or frequency of enterococcal isolation. CONCLUSIONS This study is the first to report enterococcus as a predictor of treatment failure in complicated intraabdominal infections. This trial also identifies several significant risk factors for the presence of enterococcus in such infections.

Successful management of severe group A streptococcal soft tissue infections using an aggressive medical regimen including intravenous polyspecific immunoglobulin together with a conservative surgical approach

Intravenous polyspecific immunoglobulin G (IVIG) has been reported to be efficacious as adjunctive therapy in patients with toxic shock syndrome caused by group A streptococci (GAS). GAS is also an important cause of necrotizing fasciitis, for which an early and extensive surgical intervention is currently advocated. Here we report on the use of an aggressive medical regimen including high-dose IVIG together with a conservative surgical approach in severe GAS soft tissue infection. We describe 7 patients with severe soft tissue infection caused by GAS, who all were treated with effective antimicrobials and high-dose IVIG. Surgery was either not performed or only limited exploration was carried out. Six of the patients had toxic shock syndrome. All patients survived. Immunostaining of tissue biopsies from 2 of the patients revealed high levels of GAS, superantigen and pro-inflammatory cytokines initially, which were dramatically reduced in a repeat biopsy of the initial operative site collected from 1 of the patients 66 h post-IVIG administration. The study suggests that the use of a medical regimen including IVIG in patients with severe GAS soft tissue infections may allow an initial non-operative or minimally invasive approach, which can limit the need to perform immediate wide debridements and amputations in unstable patients.

Pathogenesis of hypotension in septic shock: correlation of circulating phospholipase A2 levels with circulatory collapse.

Circulating phospholipase A2 (PLA2) has been recognized as a mediator of circulatory collapse in experimental endotoxic shock. To assess the role of serum PLA2 in septic shock in man, we determined serum PLA2 profiles in a prospective study in 12 patients with septic shock. During the hypotensive phase of sepsis, serum PLA2 levels were consistently elevated as high as 33,428 U/ml (normal range 115 +/- 12 [SE]; n = 101). In all 12 patients, PLA2 levels correlated directly with the magnitude and duration of circulatory collapse (p less than .001), with a progressive fall of serum PLA2 levels during convalescence. In contrast, serum PLA2 levels in patients with cardiogenic shock secondary to myocardial infarction remained low. In pancreatitis, PLA2 levels paralleled fluctuations of serum amylase and lipase, whereas in septic shock without pancreatic involvement, PLA2 changes were discordant with changes in pancreatic enzymes. As well, septic shock serum PLA2 failed to crossreact by radioimmunoassay with antiserum against human pancreatic PLA2. These data are consistent with an extrapancreatic source of intravascular PLA2 release during sepsis. Since endogenous serum PLA2 levels correlate directly with the magnitude of hypotension in both experimental endotoxic shock and clinical septic shock, and since parenteral administration of purified exogenous PLA2 reproduces hypotension in experimental models, we conclude that high levels of intravascular PLA2 may contribute similarly to the circulatory collapse in septic shock in man.

Evaluation of a preoperative team briefing: a new communication routine results in improved clinical practice

Background Suboptimal communication within healthcare teams can lead to adverse patient outcomes. Team briefings were previously associated with improved communication patterns, and we assessed the impact of briefings on clinical practice. To quantify the impact of the preoperative team briefing on direct patient care, we studied the timing of preoperative antibiotic administration as compared to accepted treatment guidelines. Study design A retrospective pre-intervention/post-intervention study design assessed the impact of a checklist-guided preoperative team briefing on prophylactic antibiotic administration timing in surgical cases (N=340 pre-intervention and N=340 post-intervention) across three institutions. χ2 Analyses were performed to determine whether there was a significant difference in timely antibiotic administration between the study phases. Results The process of collecting and analysing these data proved to be more complicated than expected due to great variability in documentation practices, both between study sites and between individual practitioners. In cases where the timing of antibiotics administration was documented unambiguously in the chart (n=259 pre-intervention and n=283 post-intervention), antibiotic prophylaxis was on time for 77.6% of cases in the pre-intervention phase of the study, and for 87.6% of cases in the post-intervention phase (p<0.01). Conclusions Use of a preoperative team checklist briefing was associated with improved physician compliance with antibiotic administration guidelines. Based on the results, recommendations to enhance timely antibiotic therapy are provided.

Achieving clinical improvement: an interdisciplinary intervention.

This study evaluates whether training health care teams in continuous quality improvement methods results in improvements in the care of and outcomes for patients. Nine of the 25 teams who participated in the study were successful in improving the care/outcomes for patients. Successful teams were more effective at problem solving, engaged in more functional group interactions, and were more likely to have physician participation.

Paradoxical effects of interprofessional briefings on OR team performance

Our recent research has found that structured preoperative team briefings can reduce communication failures, improve the knowledge and practice of operating room (OR) team members, and garner broad support from surgeons, nurses, and anesthesiologists. However, we have also encountered challenges and unexpected, negative effects. Using qualitative analysis of fieldnotes from 302 preoperative team briefings, we identified five paradoxical findings: team briefings could mask knowledge gaps, disrupt positive communication, reinforce professional divisions, create tension, and perpetuate a problematic culture. Fifteen percent of the briefings exhibited only these paradoxical effects without any apparent utility. We describe these paradoxical findings and analyze them in relation to educational, functional, structural, and cultural factors. This analysis is instructive not only for re-engineering the briefing process, but also for revealing dynamics that may continue to impede optimal interprofessional performance.

Antibiotic therapy for abdominal infection

Abstract. Abdominal infections are treated by resuscitation, abdominal drainage, control of the source of infection, and antimicrobial agents. Ideally, antimicrobial therapy is active against expected pathogens, safe and effective in clinical trials, inexpensive, and unlikely to promote drug resistance. Numerous single-agent and combination-drug regimens have been efficacious in clinical trials, based on coverage ofEscherichia coli andBacteroides species, the predominant pathogens isolated. Whether expanded antimicrobial coverage is required, especially in hospital-acquired infections, is controversial. Candidainfections should be treated with antifungal therapy in patients with recurrent abdominal infections, immunosuppressed patients, and those with candidal abscesses. Most agents have few serious adverse effects; aminoglycosides are the least expensive agents but cause nephro- and ototoxicity. There is little information on the promotion of drug resistance in this condition. Recent developments include the introduction of ticarcillin/clavulanic acid, ampicillin/sulbactam, piperacillin/tazobactam, meropenem, aztreonam/clindamycin, and ciprofloxacin/metronidazole; success with once-daily aminoglycosides; evidence that antibiotics limit infectious complications of pancreatitis; controversy over the value of diagnostic cultures; the use of oral therapy; evidence in favor of shorter courses of treatment; and the introduction of pharmacoeconomic studies. Clinical investigators are challenged to improve drug trials by stratifying and controlling for the adequacy of surgical intervention.

Infection control in the operating room: current practices or sacred cows?

Rene Lafreniere, MD, FRCSC, FACS: The issue of infection control in the operating room is an everyday concern for all members of the operating room team. We as surgeons, anesthetists, nurses, and patients all have opinions and beliefs about causes and prevention of infection and have strong beliefs about what should be done to eliminate or at least reduce the causative agents of infection. Infection control at one point was focused solely on what to do to prevent the patient from acquiring an infection. Nowadays, of course, we also worry about the potential impact of the patient on the health care team within the operating room environment. Currently, in the United States alone, an estimated 27 million surgical procedures are performed each year. Surgical infections can be very costly. In 1980, Cruse and Foord estimated that a surgical site infection increases a patient’s stay by approximately 10 days and costs an additional