An observational study of distractions in the operating theatre.

Several studies have reported on the negative impact of interruptions and distractions on anaesthetic, surgical and team performance in the operating theatre. This study aimed to gain a deeper understanding of these events and why they remain part of everyday clinical practice. We used a mixed methods observational study design. We scored each distractor and interruption according to an established scheme during induction of anaesthesia and the surgical procedure for 58 general surgical cases requiring general anaesthesia. We made field notes of observations, small conversations and meetings. We observed 64 members of staff for 148 hours and recorded 4594 events, giving a mean (SD) event rate of 32.8 (16.3) h-1 . The most frequent events observed during induction of anaesthesia were door movements, which accounted for 869 (63%) events, giving a mean (SD) event rate of 28.1 (14.5) h-1 . These, however, had little impact. The most common events observed during surgery were case-irrelevant verbal communication and smartphone usage, which accounted for 1020 (32%) events, giving a mean (SD) event rate of 9.0 (4.2) h-1 . These occurred mostly in periods of low work-load in a sub-team. Participants ranged from experiencing these events as severe disruption through to a welcome distraction that served to keep healthcare professionals active during low work-load, as well as reinforcing the social connections between colleagues. Mostly, team members showed no awareness of the need for silence among other sub-teams and did not vocalise the need for silence to others. Case-irrelevant verbal communication and smartphone usage may serve a physical and psychological need. The extent to which healthcare professionals may feel disrupted depends on the situation and context. When a team member was disrupted, a resilient team response often lacked. Reducing disruptive social activity might be a powerful strategy to develop a habit of cross-monitoring and mutual help across surgical and anaesthetic sub-teams. Further research is needed on how to bridge cultural borders and develop resilient interprofessional behaviours.

The effect of metrics-based feedback on acquisition of sonographic skills relevant to performance of ultrasound-guided axillary brachial plexus block.

The objective of this study was to examine the effect of metrics-based vs. non-metrics-based feedback on novices learning predefined competencies for acquisition and interpretation of sonographic images relevant to performance of ultrasound-guided axillary brachial plexus block. Twelve anaesthetic trainees were randomly assigned to either metrics-based-feedback or non-metrics-based feedback groups. After a common learning phase, all participants attempted to perform a predefined task that involved scanning the left axilla of a single volunteer. Following completion of the task, all participants in each group received feedback from a different expert in regional blocks (consultant anaesthetist) and were allowed to practise the predefined task for up to 1 h. Those in the metrics-based feedback group received feedback based on previously validated metrics, and they practised each metric item until it was performed satisfactorily, as assessed by the supervising consultant. Subsequently, each participant attempted to perform ultrasonography of the left axilla on the same volunteer. Two trained consultant anaesthetists independently scored the video recording pre- and post-feedback scans using the validated metrics list. Both groups showed improvement from pre-feedback to post-feedback scores. Compared with participants in the non-metrics-based feedback group, those in the metrics-based feedback group completed more steps: median (IQR [range]) 18.8 (1.5 [17-20]) vs. 14.3 (4.5 [11-18.5]), p = 0.009, and made fewer errors 0.5 (1 [0-1.5]) vs. 1.5 (2 [1-6]), p = 0.041 postfeedback. In this study, novices' sonographic skills showed greater improvement when feedback was combined with validated metrics.