Premium
Variability and interpretation of communication taxonomy during robot‐assisted surgery: do we all speak the same language?
Author(s) -
Raheem Sana,
Ahmed Youssef E.,
Hussein Ahmed A.,
Johnson Amanda,
Cavuoto Lora,
May Paul,
Cole Adam,
Wang Derek,
Ahmad Basim,
Hasasneh Adam,
Guru Khurshid A.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
bju international
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.773
H-Index - 148
eISSN - 1464-410X
pISSN - 1464-4096
DOI - 10.1111/bju.14150
Subject(s) - medicine , acknowledgement , clipping (morphology) , task (project management) , surgery , general surgery , medical physics , computer science , philosophy , linguistics , computer security , management , economics
Objective To investigate and analyse the different ways surgeons communicate with bedside assistants during robot‐assisted surgery ( RAS ). Methods We retrospectively reviewed video and audio recordings of 26 RAS procedures (23 prostatectomies and three cystectomies). Three cameras and eight lapel microphones were used to record the operating theatre environment. We identified five common tasks and categorized them into ‘specific’, ‘non‐specific’ and ‘unclear’ categories. We also determined the frequency, time to execute the task, inconveniences and acknowledgements associated with each category. The most efficient category was the one that took the shortest duration to accomplish and was associated with the fewest inconveniences. Results A total of 1 000 requests were made by three surgeons for six bedside assistants by three surgeons. The five identified tasks were: instrument change; clipping; suction; irrigation; and retraction. For instrument change, non‐specific requests were the most frequent compared with the other categories (77% vs 18% vs 5%; P < 0.001). For suction, specific requests were the most frequently used of the three categories (73% vs 27% vs 0%; P < 0.001) and this task was associated with the fewest inconveniences (38% vs 62%; P = 0.01). For clipping, irrigation and retraction, both specific and non‐specific requests were similar in terms of their frequency, action time and inconveniences. Comparing complete vs incomplete requests, incomplete requests had significantly shorter median action time (5 vs 8 s; P < 0.001) but did not significantly differ in terms of inconveniences and acknowledgement. Conclusion To our knowledge, this is the first study to provide a detailed analysis of communication during RAS . It lays a foundation for standardized taxonomy to improve communication, surgical efficiency and patient safety.