No abstract

No abstract

Objectives For the first time this study carried out a cost-utility analysis comparing open surgical repair versus robotic minimally invasive surgical repair for Mitral Regurgitation. The respective benefits and costs of each treatment option gained from data in published literature have been analysed and subsequent suggestions for the allocation of resources and treatment recommendation will be offered. Methods The analysis was performed by including intraoperative and post-operative costs of the interventions and costs of the most prevalent complications associated with each operation. Thus, the Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) calculated will guide the decision of resource allocation by assessing whether the added cost of robotic surgery is justified given the NICE (National institute of Clinical Excellence) threshold of £30,000/QALY. The choice of perspective taken is through the lens of the British National Healthcare System. Results The Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) calculated was £4781.44/QALY. This ICER shows that if robotic surgery was to become gold standard, the NHS would be paying £4781.44/QALY gained per patient. Considering robotic surgery is associated with fewer complications for patients but also has a cost per QALY below the NICE threshold of £30,000/QALY, it seems that this is a fitting alternative to open heart mitral valve repair. After a sensitivity analysis accounting for the initial robotic capital investment the ICER resulted to £22,379.94/QALY, still below NICE’s threshold. Conclusion Our results have shown that robotic assisted minimally invasive repair of the mitral valve is a cost-effective option and can be implemented in the British national healthcare setting.

Background Teamwork is fundamental to ensuring the quality of care and patient safety in operating rooms. It has been shown that the occurrence of adverse events is closely linked to a poor quality of teamwork in these settings. Thus, this study aimed to assess teamwork in different operating rooms of the university hospital of Sahloul Sousse (Tunisia). Methods It is a descriptive cross-sectional study with convenience sampling, conducted in operating rooms of the university hospital of Sahloul Sousse (Tunisia) between February and April 2018. The measuring instrument was the validated observation grid 'Communication and Teamwork Skills Assessment Tool (CATS) '. Teamwork is assessed through 4 domains (Situation awareness, Coordination, Communication, Cooperation). Behaviors are marked in rows each time they occur and are rated for quality in columns labeled “Observed and Good,” “Variation in Quality” (meaning incomplete or of variable quality), and “Expected but not Observed.” Results A total of 51 interventions were observed. Good coordination between the team members was noted, as well as good cooperation within the teams. A variation of quality level of communication with the patient was noted in 31.4% of cases, also communication about the context, the situation and recommendation among caregivers is not quite good with a percentage of 39.2%. Moreover, the work environment was rated as good in 84.3% of cases. Conclusions Some failures in teamwork were noted, hence it is important to take corrective measures for better practice and better patient management in such a complex environment, the operating rooms, where there is a strong need for team coordination. Key messages There is a direct relationship between the quality of care and the effectiveness of teamwork. It is necessary to eliminate the barriers to communication, in order to prevent adverse events.