TY - JOUR
T1 - Implementation of integrated operating rooms
T2 - How much time is saved and how do medical staff experience the upgrading A mixed methods study in Denmark
AU - Carstensen, Kathrine
AU - Jensen, Emma Kejser
AU - Madsen, Mads Lænsø
AU - Thomsen, Anne Marie Ladehoff
AU - Løvschall, Claus
AU - Tayyari Dehbarez, Nasrin
AU - Risør, Bettina Wulff
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding The research was supported by Aarhus University Hospital and the five Danish regions.
Publisher Copyright:
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
PY - 2020/7/29
Y1 - 2020/7/29
N2 - Objectives To evaluate staff experiences of the implementation and use of integrated operating rooms (IORs) in comparison to conventional operating rooms (CORs) in Denmark. Design This study used a mixed methods approach by combining quantitative (registry-based analysis of surgical time) and qualitative (interviews with experienced surgical staff) perspectives. Setting Hospitals in Denmark. Methods The 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. Results The 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. Conclusions This 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.
AB - Objectives To evaluate staff experiences of the implementation and use of integrated operating rooms (IORs) in comparison to conventional operating rooms (CORs) in Denmark. Design This study used a mixed methods approach by combining quantitative (registry-based analysis of surgical time) and qualitative (interviews with experienced surgical staff) perspectives. Setting Hospitals in Denmark. Methods The 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. Results The 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. Conclusions This 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.
KW - integrated operating room
KW - minimally invasive surgery
KW - surgical workflow
KW - technical equipment
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85088852186&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034459
DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034459
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 32727737
AN - SCOPUS:85088852186
SN - 2044-6055
VL - 10
JO - BMJ Open
JF - BMJ Open
IS - 7
M1 - e034459
ER -