Evaluation of Potential Distractors in the Urology Operating Room
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Surgical outcomes depend on patient and disease-related factors, as well as the technical skill of the surgeon. Various distractions in the operating room (OR) environment have been shown to negatively impact a surgeon's performance. A survey was conducted with the objective to evaluate and characterize distractions during urologic surgery. METHODS: An Internet-based survey was distributed to 2057 international urologists via email between April and October 2011; questions focused on a variety of disruptive factors postulated to have a negative impact on surgical performance. RESULTS: Of the 523 (25%) respondents, 58% practiced in North America, 42% were from an academic institution, and 68% had completed a clinical fellowship. In an average year, 83% reported having operated at least once while sleep deprived, 84% when significantly ill, 55% with a musculoskeletal injury, and 65% under significant social stress. Up to 38% reported that on at least one occasion, such "internal distractions" had significantly affected surgical performance and 14% perceived that at least one surgical complication was caused mainly by an internal distraction. Less than 50% had ever cancelled surgery because of an internal distraction. Music was routinely played in the OR by 57% of respondents, >67% reported answering pages and discussing consults while operating, and 25% reported "commonly" working with scrub nurses/techs that were unfamiliar with the procedure and/or instruments. Only 44% had consistent individual(s) assisting, and 27% reported that the scrub nurse/tech would "commonly" scrub out during a critical portion of the procedure. Overall, 14.5% reported that at least one complication had occurred mainly because of such "external" or "interactive" distractions. CONCLUSIONS: Urologists face various distractions in the OR that can negatively impact surgical performance, potentially compromising patient outcomes and safety. Further studies are needed to elucidate the true impact of such distractions and to develop strategies to mitigate their effects.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».