Abstract:In this study, we use five steps to demonstrate how to control surgical and non-surgical time in phase I. There are some measures that can be taken to prevent skew and instability in the process. Also, using SPC, one surgeon can be shown to be a real benchmark.
“…[1, 2] Surgical quality can be influenced by various factors in clinics, such as clinicians’ skill, and the management of surgical instruments and supplies [3]. Various methods have been used to improve surgical quality in clinics [4], including surgical team checklists [5], evidence-based protocols [6], surgeon performance [7], and staff education [8]. However, as far as we know, only one study has focus on improving quality and safety in surgical sterile instrument processing [3].…”
BackgroundSurgical instrument processing is important for improving the safety of surgical care in hospitals. However, it has been rarely studied to date. Errors in surgical instrument processing may increase operative times and costs, and increase the risk of surgical infections and perioperative morbidity. We aimed to investigate the errors occurred in packaging surgical instruments.MethodsSurgical instrument tracking system in a central sterile supply department (CSSD) was used to collect the packaging data during January–August 2016 in the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou City, China.ResultsData on 33,839 surgical instrument packages were collected. A total of 398 (1.18%) errors occurred, including incomplete packages (n = 70), instrument missing (n = 77), instrument malfunction (n = 27), instrument in wrong specification (n = 175), wrong packaging tag (n = 8), box and cover mismatched (n = 14), wrong packing material (n = 15), indicator card missing (n = 6), and wrong count of instruments (n = 6). The highest error rates were observed among least experienced nurses (N1 level) and during the 16:00–20:00 time period (both p < 0.05). A relatively high error rate was detected in the Department of Orthopedics as well as in the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics.ConclusionWrong instrument specifications were the primary packing error identified in the current study. Further effort is needed to standardize the packing procedure for instruments under the same category and more effort is required to reduce the error rate during high risk times, or in the surgery department.
“…[1, 2] Surgical quality can be influenced by various factors in clinics, such as clinicians’ skill, and the management of surgical instruments and supplies [3]. Various methods have been used to improve surgical quality in clinics [4], including surgical team checklists [5], evidence-based protocols [6], surgeon performance [7], and staff education [8]. However, as far as we know, only one study has focus on improving quality and safety in surgical sterile instrument processing [3].…”
BackgroundSurgical instrument processing is important for improving the safety of surgical care in hospitals. However, it has been rarely studied to date. Errors in surgical instrument processing may increase operative times and costs, and increase the risk of surgical infections and perioperative morbidity. We aimed to investigate the errors occurred in packaging surgical instruments.MethodsSurgical instrument tracking system in a central sterile supply department (CSSD) was used to collect the packaging data during January–August 2016 in the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou City, China.ResultsData on 33,839 surgical instrument packages were collected. A total of 398 (1.18%) errors occurred, including incomplete packages (n = 70), instrument missing (n = 77), instrument malfunction (n = 27), instrument in wrong specification (n = 175), wrong packaging tag (n = 8), box and cover mismatched (n = 14), wrong packing material (n = 15), indicator card missing (n = 6), and wrong count of instruments (n = 6). The highest error rates were observed among least experienced nurses (N1 level) and during the 16:00–20:00 time period (both p < 0.05). A relatively high error rate was detected in the Department of Orthopedics as well as in the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics.ConclusionWrong instrument specifications were the primary packing error identified in the current study. Further effort is needed to standardize the packing procedure for instruments under the same category and more effort is required to reduce the error rate during high risk times, or in the surgery department.
“…In the remaining studies, the reasons for applying variable control charts were diverse. In some articles, the charts were used to determine steady-state behavior or benchmarks, 20 , 30 , 31 to measure variation or process performance, 15 , 34 , 38 to identify links between changes and opportunities for improvement between hospital and micro- or/macro-systems, 28 to evaluate whether nurse staffing was meeting needs, 22 or for other reasons. 19 , 24 , 39 Figure 3 Were methods other than variable control charts used?…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…With regard to content, Table 1 summarizes the research contexts, output variables and units of analysis. Twelve studies were conducted in surgery departments, 13,20,21,24,[28][29][30][31][32]35,36,39 five in emergency departments 19,[25][26][27]33 and two in intensive care 14,22 and health information departments. 15,17 Single studies were conducted in a urology department, 23 internal medicine, 38 a medical record department, 16 a registration department, 37 a women, infants and children clinic 18 and a general practice.…”
Objective
To conduct a literature review to determine where and how variable control charts have contributed to quality improvement in healthcare.
Methods
A targeted literature search of the ABI/INFORM Global, Science Direct, Medline and Google Scholar databases was conducted, which yielded 6875 papers. Screening articles on the basis of title and abstract resulted in references to 163 articles, leading to the identification of 29 articles published between 1992 and 2019 that met the inclusion criteria. Common themes, variables and units of analysis were then analyzed.
Results
Variable control charts have been applied in 11 different healthcare contexts, using 17 different variables, at various levels within healthcare organizations. The main reason for applying variable control charts is to demonstrate a process change, usually following a specific change or quality intervention. The study identified various limitations and benefits of applying variable control charts. The charts are visually easy to understand for both management and employees, but they are limited by their requirement for potentially complex and resource-intensive data collection.
Conclusion
Variable control charts contribute to quality improvement in healthcare by enabling visualization and monitoring of variations and changes in healthcare processes. The methodology has been most frequently used to demonstrate process shifts after quality interventions. There still is a great potential for more studies applying variable control charts.
“…Within‐group or rational group comparisons must have common causes to be included in a sample. Only within‐group variations due to these patient characteristics can be considered before making group comparisons [14,26,28,40,41]. Then special causes (true excess mortality) can be captured among groups.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It provides a means of visualization and a scientific solution to any process [11–13]. Our previous article had demonstrated SPC (Shewhart chart) as a tool for controlling performance after stabilized process in Phase I (retrospective analysis and benchmarking) [14]. After Phase I, we need to monitor and detect small process shifts (Phase II), especially for the life‐saving‐related process.…”
A visual approach to EMS systems monitoring that combines the risk-adjusted cumulative sum, Risk-adjusted resetting sequential probability ratio test and cumulative risk-adjusted mortality with prediction limits charts was established. It was found that this approach can be effectively used by the EMS community to monitor OHCA outcomes in real time.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
