Observed rates of surgical instrument errors point to visualization tasks as being a critically vulnerable point in sterile processing and a significant cause of lost chargeable OR minutes

Abstract

Abstract Background The reporting of surgical instrument errors historically relies on cumbersome, non-automated, human-dependent, data entry into a computer database that is not integrated into the electronic medical record. The limitations of these reporting systems make it difficult to accurately estimate the negative impact of surgical instrument errors on operating room efficiencies. We set out to determine the impact of surgical instrument errors on a two-hospital healthcare campus using independent observers trained in the identification of Surgical Instrument Errors. Methods This study was conducted in the 7 pediatric ORs at an academic healthcare campus. Direct observations were conducted over the summer of 2021 in the 7 pediatric ORs by 24 trained student observers during elective OR days. Surgical service line, error type, case type (inpatient or outpatient), and associated length of delay were recorded. Results There were 236 observed errors affecting 147 individual surgical cases. The three most common errors were Missing+ (n = 160), Broken/poorly functioning instruments (n = 44), and Tray+ (n = 13). Errors arising from failures in visualization (i.e. inspection, identification, function) accounted for 88.6% of all errors (Missing+/Broken/Bioburden). Significantly more inpatient cases (42.73%) had errors than outpatient cases (22.32%) (p = 0.0129). For cases in which data was collected on whether an error caused a delay (103), over 50% of both IP and OP cases experienced a delay. The average length of delays per case was 10.16 min. The annual lost charges in dollars for surgical instrument associated delays in chargeable minutes was estimated to be between $6,751,058.06 and $9,421,590.11. Conclusions These data indicate that elimination of surgical instrument errors should be a major target of waste reduction. Most observed errors (88.6%) have to do with failures in the visualization required to identify, determine functionality, detect the presence of bioburden, and assemble instruments into the correct trays. To reduce these errors and associated waste, technological advances in instrument identification, inspection, and assembly will need to be made and applied to the process of sterile processing.