Implementation of integrated operating rooms: how much time is saved and how do medical staff experience the upgrading? A mixed methods study in Denmark

Abstract

ObjectivesTo evaluate staff experiences of the implementation and use of integrated operating rooms (IORs) in comparison to conventional operating rooms (CORs) in Denmark.DesignThis study used a mixed methods approach by combining quantitative (registry-based analysis of surgical time) and qualitative (interviews with experienced surgical staff) perspectives.SettingHospitals in Denmark.MethodsThe quantitative component compared the time consumption of patients between the integrated and CORs in two hospital departments at Aarhus University Hospital. Data were extracted from the administrative system in the hospital. Independent t-tests were used to estimate the statistical differences in the mean time spent on patients between the two operating rooms (ORs), and linear regression was applied to adjust for the potential influence of the surgeon. The explorative qualitative research component involved interviews with 20 informants from 10 hospital departments across seven Danish hospitals, all of whom participated between February and April 2019. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsThe quantitative analyses showed that preparation time for lobectomy was significantly lower and completion time for cholecystectomy significantly higher in the integrated compared with CORs. No other statistically significant differences were found. The qualitative analysis showed that some nurses experienced better cooperation with the surgeon and that non-sterile nurses experienced an improved working environment in the integrated compared with CORs. Surgical staff experienced that the IORs led to improved workflow during surgery.ConclusionsThis study identified no disadvantages regarding the use of IORs compared with CORs. The quantitative component of the research did not identify convincing statistically significant differences in the time consumption per patient between the ORs and according to the qualitative analyses IORs were not experienced by study participants to lead to major improvements among staff.

Integrated Operation Theater Spine Suite (IOTSS) History of Spine Surgery: Lord Krishna the First Eternal Spine Surgeon

“…The amalgamation of the gadgets enhanced safety, greater confidence, accuracy, and tissue respect in open surgeries, minimally invasive surgeries, and complex cases. IOTSS helps in improving the capabilities of the surgeons and surgical team and ensures a safe environment for the patient [3]. It increases surgeon confidence and expands the horizon of complex cases.…”

“…Any deviation from normal anatomy, making the surgeon opt for the best possible surgical plan. This technology benefits complex spine deformities such as ky phoscoliosis, craniovertebral junction, revision surgeries, and minimally invasive surgeries [3]. The chance of getting a C.T.…”

Electromagnetic Navigation Bronchoscopy Integrated Non-intubated Uniportal VATS in Localization and Resection of Pulmonary Nodules

“…Given the merits of both uniportal VATS under non-intubated anesthesia and ENB, the concept of the integrated operating room was appeared and developed. Previous studies ( 8 – 11 ) have found that the integrated operating room could reduce the interruption in the operation process, optimize the workflow. Thus, it was less time-consuming and potentially improved safety in the OR.…”