Meaningful compliance with the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist is much lower than indicated by administrative data. Sign-out compliance is generally poor, suggesting incompatibility with normal theatre work practices. There is variation between hospitals, but consistency across studied specialties, suggesting a need to address organizational culture issues.

BackgroundWe previously developed and validated the Oxford NOTECHS rating system for evaluating the non-technical skills of an entire operating theatre team. Experience with the scale identified the need for greater discrimination between levels of performance within the normal range. We report here the development of a modified scale (Oxford NOTECHS II) to facilitate this. The new measure uses an eight-point instead of a four point scale to measure each dimension of non-technical skills, and begins with a default rating of 6 for each element. We evaluated this new scale in 297 operations at five NHS sites in four surgical specialities. Measures of theatre process reliability (glitch count) and compliance with the WHO surgical safety checklist were scored contemporaneously, and relationships with NOTECHS II scores explored.ResultsMean team Oxford NOTECHS II scores was 73.39 (range 37–92). The means for surgical, anaesthetic and nursing sub-teams were 24.61 (IQR 23, 27); 24.22 (IQR 23, 26) and 24.55 (IQR 23, 26). Oxford NOTECHS II showed good inter-rater reliability between human factors and clinical observers in each of the four domains. Teams with high WHO compliance had higher mean Oxford NOTECHS II scores (74.5) than those with low compliance (71.1) (p = 0.010). We observed only a weak correlation between Oxford NOTECHS II scores and glitch count; r = −0.26 (95% CI −0.36 to −0.15). Oxford NOTECHS II scores did not vary significantly between 5 different hospital sites, but a significant difference was seen between specialities (p = 0.001).ConclusionsOxford NOTECHS II provides good discrimination between teams while retaining reliability and correlation with other measures of teamwork performance, and is not confounded by technical performance. It is therefore suitable for combined use with a technical performance scale to provide a global description of operating theatre team performance.

ObjectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness of aviation-style teamwork training in improving operating theatre team performance and clinical outcomes.Setting3 operating theatres in a UK district general hospital, 1 acting as a control group and the other 2 as the intervention group.Participants72 operations (37 intervention, 35 control) were observed in full by 2 trained observers during two 3-month observation periods, before and after the intervention period.InterventionsA 1-day teamwork training course for all staff, followed by 6 weeks of weekly in-service coaching to embed learning.Primary and secondary outcome measuresWe measured team non-technical skills using Oxford NOTECHS II, (evaluating the whole team and the surgical, anaesthetic and nursing subteams, and evaluated technical performance using the Glitch count. We evaluated compliance with the WHO checklist by recording whether time-out (T/O) and sign-out (S/O) were attempted, and whether T/O was fully complied with. We recorded complications, re-admissions and duration of hospital stay using hospital administrative data. We compared the before–after change in the intervention and control groups using 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and regression modelling.ResultsMean NOTECHS II score increased significantly from 71.6 to 75.4 in the active group but remained static in the control group (p=0.047). Among staff subgroups, the nursing score increased significantly (p=0.006), but the anaesthetic and surgical scores did not. The attempt rate for WHO T/O procedures increased significantly in both active and control groups, but full compliance with T/O improved only in the active group (p=0.003). Mean glitch rate was unchanged in the control group but increased significantly (7.2–10.2/h, p=0.002) in the active group.ConclusionsTeamwork training was associated with improved non-technical skills in theatre teams but also with a rise in operative glitches.

The underlying aetiology of SIS is still debated. The results of this review demonstrated a lack of consistency of study methodologies and results. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to support a clinical belief that the scapula adopts a common and consistent posture in SIS. This may reflect the complex, multifactorial nature of the syndrome. Additionally, it may be due to the methodological variations and shortfalls in the available research. It also raises the possibility that deviation from a 'normal' scapular position may not be contributory to SIS but part of normal variations. Further research is required to establish whether a common pattern exists in scapular kinematics in SIS patients or whether subgroups of patients with common patterns can be identified to guide management options. Non-surgical treatment involving rehabilitation of the scapula to an idealised normal posture is currently not supported by the available literature.

Bilateral thalamic stimulation is effective in reducing tremor and functional disability in ET; however, dysarthria is a possible complication.