Error rating tool to identify and analyse technical errors and events in laparoscopic surgery

The Generic Error Rating Tool: A Novel Approach to Assessment of Performance and Surgical Education in Gynecologic Laparoscopy

OBJECTIVE

Global rating scales are commonly used to rate surgeons' skill level. However, these tools lack granularity required for specific skill feedback. Recently, an alternative framework has been developed that is designed to measure technical errors during laparoscopy. The purpose of the present study was to gather validity evidence for the Generic Error Rating Tool (GERT) in gynecologic laparoscopy.

DESIGN

Video recordings of total laparoscopic hysterectomies were analyzed by 2 blinded reviewers using the GERT and the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) scale. Several sources of validity were examined according to the unitary framework of validity. Main outcomes were interrater and intrarater reliability regarding total number of errors and events. Further, surgeons were grouped according to OSATS scores (OSATS ≥ 28 = high performers and OSATS < 28 = low performers), and the number of errors and events was compared between groups. Correlation analysis between GERT and OSATS scores was performed. Lastly, error distribution within procedure steps was explored and compared between high- and low-performing surgeons.

SETTING

University teaching hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 20 anonymized video recordings of total laparoscopic hysterectomies.

RESULTS

Interrater and intrarater reliability was high (intraclass correlation coefficient >0.95) for total number of errors and events. Low performers made significantly more errors than high performers did (median = 49.5 [interquartile range: 34.5-66] vs median = 31 [interquartile range: 16.75-35.25], p = 0.002). There was a significant negative correlation between individual OSATS scores and total number of errors (Spearman ρ = -0.76, p < 0.001, and ρ = -0.88, p < 0.001, for raters 1 and 2, respectively). Error distribution varied between operative steps, and low performers made more errors in some steps, but not in others.

CONCLUSION

GERT allows for objective and reproducible assessment of technical errors during gynecologic laparoscopy and could be used for performance analysis and personalized surgical education and training.

Characterising 'near miss' events in complex laparoscopic surgery through video analysis

BACKGROUND

Root cause analyses of surgical complications are of high importance to ensure surgical quality, but specific details on technical causes often remain unclear. Identifying subclinical intraoperative incidents attributable to technical errors is essential for developing rescue mechanisms to prevent adverse outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

Descriptive study to characterise intraoperative technical error-event patterns in successful laparoscopic procedures.

METHODS

Events (injuries) identified during prior blinded analyses of 54 unedited recordings of bariatric laparoscopic procedures were subjected to a secondary review to determine the presumed underlying error mechanism. The recordings were obtained from one university-based bariatric collaborative programme, and represented consultant, fellow and shared trainee cases.

RESULTS

Sixty-six events were identified in 38 recordings, while 16 videos showed no events. In 25 (66%) of the videos that showed events, additional measures such as haemostasis or suture repair were required. Common identified events were minor bleeding (n=39, 59%), thermal injury to non-target tissue (n=7, 11%), serosal tears (n=6, 9%). Common error mechanisms were 'inadequate use of force/distance (too much)' (n=20, 30%) and 'inadequate visualisation' during grasping/dissecting (n=6, 9%), 'inadequate use of force/distance (too much)' using an energy device (n=6, 9%), or during suturing (n=6, 9%). All events were recognised intraoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of successful operations allowed the identification of numerous error-event sequences. Reviewing injury mechanisms can enhance surgeons' understanding of relevant errors. This error awareness may aid surgeons in preparing for cases, help avoid errors and mitigate their consequences. Thus, this approach may impact future surgical education and quality initiatives aimed at reducing surgical risks.

Application of failure mode and effect analysis in laparoscopic colon surgery training

AIM

To evaluate if application of failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) to laparoscopy training can help surgeons acquire laparoscopy skills.

METHODS

After preparing a FMEA matrix of laparoscopic sigmoidectomy, we have introduced it during three laparoscopy courses. Forty-eight surgeons, divided into 24 teams of two surgeons, have participated in three courses. During each course, every team has performed three laparoscopic sigmoidectomies in three experimental animals (1 OR session every day). Risk priority number (RPN) has been calculated for every surgery, and the results have been discussed at the end of each training day with all participants.

RESULTS

We have observed a decline in the median RPN from 1339 during the first OR session through 62 during second OR session to reach 0 in the third OR session. Only two teams out of 24 were not able to reach a RPN of less than 300 during third OR session. When the type of failures were analysed, we have observed a shift from procedure-type failures to technical failures that depended on each participant technical abilities.

CONCLUSION

Application of FMEA principles to laparoscopy training can help acquire non-technical skills necessary for safe laparoscopic surgery.