To measure the safety culture in the robotics surgery operating room before and after implementation of the Robotic Operating Room Computerized Checklist (RORCC).
Gynecology surgical staff (n = 32).
An urban community hospital.
The Safety Attitudes Questionnaire domains examined were teamwork, safety, job satisfaction, stress recognition, perceptions of management, and working conditions. Questions and domains were described using percent agreement and the Cronbach alpha. Paired t-tests were used to describe differences before and after implementation of the checklist.
Measurements and Main Results
Mean (SD) staff age was 46.7 (9.5) years, and most were women (78%) and worked full-time (97%). Twenty respondents (83% of nurses, 80% of surgeons, 66% of surgical technicians, and 33% of certified registered nurse anesthetists) completed the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire; 6 were excluded because of non-matching identifiers. Before RORCC implementation, the highest quality of communication and collaboration was reported by surgeons and surgical technicians (100%). Certified registered nurse anesthetists reported only adequate levels of communication and collaboration with other positions. Most staff reported positive responses for teamwork (48%; α = 0.81), safety (47%; α = 0.75), working conditions (37%; α = 0.55), stress recognition (26%; α = 0.71), and perceptions of management (32%; α = 0.52). No differences were observed after RORCC implementation.
Quality of communication and collaboration in the gynecology robotics operating room is high between most positions; however, safety attitude responses are low overall. No differences after RORCC implementation and low response rates may highlight lack of staff support.
Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
Zullo, Melissa D; McCarroll, Michele L.; Mendise, Thomas M.; Ferris, Edward F; Roulette, G. Dante; Zolton, Jessica; Andrews, Stephen J.; von Gruenigen, Vivian E. (2014). Safety Culture in the Gynecology Robotics Operating Room. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology 21(5) 893-900. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2014.03.027. Retrieved from https://oaks.kent.edu/behepubs/15