Bar-coding Surgical Sponges To Improve Safety
Clicks: 252
ID: 274110
2008
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Star Article
30.0
/100
252 views
33 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
StarRanked #35 of 50 articles by views in annals of surgery
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
A randomized, controlled trial was performed to evaluate a computer-assisted method for counting sponges using a bar-code system.Retained sponges are a rare and preventable problem but persist in surgery despite standardized protocols for counting. Technology that improves detection of counting errors could reduce risk to surgical patients.We performed a randomized controlled trial comparing a bar-coded sponge system with a traditional counting protocol in 300 general surgery operations. Observers monitored sponge and instrument counts and recorded all incidents of miscounted or misplaced sponges. Surgeons and operating room staff completed postoperative and end-of-study surveys evaluating the bar-code system.The bar-code system detected significantly more counting discrepancies than the traditional protocol (32 vs.13 discrepancies, P = 0.007). These discrepancies involved both misplaced sponges (21 vs. 12 sponges, P = 0.17) and miscounted sponges (11 vs. 1 sponge, P = 0.007). The system introduced new technical difficulties (2.04 per 1000 sponges) and increased the time spent counting sponges (5.3 vs. 2.4 minutes, P < 0.0001). In postoperative surveys, there was no difference in surgical teams' confidence that all sponges were accounted for, but they rated the counting process and team performance lower in operations randomized to the bar-code arm. By the end of the study, however, most providers found the system easy to use, felt confident in its ability to track sponges, and reported a positive effect on the counting process.Use of automated counting using bar-coded surgical sponges improved detection of miscounted and misplaced sponges and was well tolerated by surgical staff members.
| Reference Key |
gawande2008annalsbar-coding
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Caprice C. Greenberg,Rafael Diaz-Flores,Stuart R. Lipsitz,Scott E. Regenbogen,Lynn Mulholland,Francine Mearn,Shilpa Rao,Tamara Toidze,Atul Gawande;Caprice C. Greenberg;Rafael Diaz-Flores;Stuart R. Lipsitz;Scott E. Regenbogen;Lynn Mulholland;Francine Mearn;Shilpa Rao;Tamara Toidze;Atul Gawande; |
| Journal | annals of surgery |
| Year | 2008 |
| DOI |
10.1097/sla.0b013e3181656cd5
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.