Ergonomia e fatores humanos na saúde pública: uma perspectiva sobre a compreensão da relação entre objetos estranhos retidos e a equipe de enfermagem
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.rfnsp.e355794Palavras-chave:
Ergonomia/Fatores Humanos, Segurança do Paciente, Cirurgia, Enfermagem, Objeto Estranho Retido, SEIPSResumo
A segurança dos doentes é uma prioridade para os sistemas de saúde. O desenvolvimento de estratégias de melhoria da qualidade foi enriquecido pela incursão da disciplina da ergonomia e dos factores humanos nos cuidados de saúde. A “Iniciativa de Engenharia de Segurança para a Segurança dos Doentes” (modelo seips) identifica cinco elementos presentes no sistema: pessoa(s), tarefas, ferramentas/tecnologias, ambiente e organização. A interação destes elementos contribui para a prestação de serviços de qualidade. Na cirurgia, o modelo seips pode analisar objectos estranhos retidos, que comprometem a segurança dos doentes e representam um problema de saúde pública e custos elevados para as instituições de saúde. A contagem cirúrgica visa a prevenção destes objectos e é uma atividade realizada pelos enfermeiros. O objetivo deste artigo é, utilizando o modelo seips, contextualizar a relação entre o pessoal de enfermagem e os objectos estranhos retidos, de modo a descrever as falhas nos processos de trabalho. A multitarefa e a heurística são elementos da categoria “pessoa(s)”. A contagem de falhas é o principal elemento das “tarefas” e, nas “ferramentas”, foram identificadas deficiências nos documentos de registo. As deficiências na iluminação são identificadas em “ambiente”, e em “organização” destaca-se a rotação do pessoal. Por último, o ambiente externo identifica a ausência de políticas e protocolos obrigatórios para prevenir estes incidentes. O modelo seips propõe uma abordagem que analisa os objectos estranhos retidos desde o nível micro ao macro, e fornece evidências sobre como este incidente ocorre, permitindo o desenvolvimento de estratégias eficazes para a sua prevenção.
Downloads
Referências
1. Carayon P, Wooldridge A, Hoonakker P, et al. SEIPS 3.0: Human-centered design of the patient journey for patient safety. Appl Ergon. 2020;84:103033. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2019.103033
2. Rodziewicz T, Houseman B, et al. Medical error reduction and prevention. StatPearls [internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing [internet]; 2024 [citado 2024 feb. 21]. Disponible en: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK499956/
3. Steelman VM, Shaw C, et al. Retained surgical sponges: A descriptive study of 319 occurrences and contributing factors from 2012 to 2017. Patient Saf Surg. 2018;12(1):1-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13037-018-0166-0
4. Moffatt-Bruce SD, Cook CH, et al. Risk factors for retained surgical items: A meta-analysis and proposed risk stratification system. J Surg Res. 2014;190(2):429-36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2014.05.044
5. Meza-Galindo MF, Ensaldo-Carrasco E, Aristizabal-Hoyos GP, et al. El objeto extraño retenido y su relación con enfermería: revisión sistemática exploratoria. CuidArte [internet]. 2022 [citado 2024 mar. 4]; 11(21):19-39. Disponible en: https://www.revistas.unam.mx/index.php/cuidarte/article/view/79484
6. Edel EM. Surgical count practice variability and the potential for retained surgical items. AORN J [internet]. 2012;95(2):228-38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aorn.2011.02.014
7. Steelman VM, Shaw C, et al. Unintentionally retained foreign objects: A descriptive study of 308 sentinel events and contributing factors. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf [internet]. 2019;45(4):249-58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjq.2018.09.001
8. Singhal PM, Vats M, et al. Asymptomatic gossypiboma with complete intramural migration and ileoileal fistula. BMJ Case Rep. 2019;12(6):1-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bcr-2018-228587
9. Carayon P, Schoofs Hundt A, Karsh BT, et al. Work system design for patient safety: The SEIPS model. BMJ Qual Saf. 2006;15(Supl. 1):i50-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/QSHC.2005.015842
10. Egorova NN, Moskowitz A, Gelijns A, et al. Managing the prevention of retained surgical instruments: What is the value of counting? Ann Surg. 2008;247(1):13-18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e3180f633be
11. Grant EK, Gattamorta KA, Foronda CL. Reducing the risk of unintended retained surgical sponges: A quality improvement project. Perioper Care Oper Room Manag. 2020;21:100099. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcorm.2020.100099
12. Turgut M, Akhaddar A, Turgut AT. Retention of nonabsorbable hemostatic materials (retained surgical sponge, gossypiboma, textiloma, gauzoma, muslinoma) after spinal surgery: A systematic review of cases reported during the last half-century. World Neurosurg. 2018;116:255-67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2018.05.119
13. Corrigan S, Kay A, O’Byrne K, et al. A socio-technical exploration for reducing & mitigating the risk of retained foreign objects. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(4):714. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15040714
14. Organización Mundial de la Salud. Alianza mundial para la seguridad del paciente. Lista oms de verificación de la seguridad de la cirugía. Manual de aplicación. La cirugía segura salva vidas [internet]. 2008 [citado 2024 mar 15]. Disponible en: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/70083/1/WHO_IER_PSP_2008.05_spa.pdf
15. De Paiva MC, De Paiva SA, Berti HW. Eventos adversos: análise de um instrumento de notificação utilizado no gerenciamento de enfermagem. Rev Esc Enferm USP. 2010;44(2):287-94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0080-62342010000200007
16. Cahn J. Clinical Issues-March 2022. AORN J. 2022;115(3):273-81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/aorn.13631
17. Organización Mundial de la Salud. WHO. Lista de verificación de la seguridad de la cirugía 2009. La cirugía segura salva vidas [internet]; 2009 [citado 2024 mar 15]. Disponible en: https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/44233/9789243598598_spa_Checklist.pdf;sequence=2
18. Goldberg JL, Feldman DL. Implementing AORN recommended practices for prevention of retained surgical Items. AORN J [internet]. 2012;95(2):205-19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aorn.2011.11.010
19. Kusuda K, Yamashita K, Tanaka S, et al. Development of a surgical sponge counting system using radiographic images. Surg Innov. 2020;27(6):647-52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1553350620943349
20. Neyens DM, Bayramzadeh S, Catchpole K, et al. Using a systems approach to evaluate a circulating nurse’s work patterns and workflow disruptions. Appl Ergon. 2019;78:293-300. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2018.03.017
21. Hallbeck MS, Paquet V. Human factors and ergonomics in the operating room: Contributions that advance surgical practice: Preface. Appl Ergon. 2019;78:248-50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2019.04.007
22. Vogelsang AC von, Swenne CL, et al. Operating theatre nurse specialist competence to ensure patient safety in the operating theatre: A discursive paper. Nurs Open. 2020;7(2):495-502. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.424
23. Aceves-González C, Rodríguez Y, Escobar-Galindo CM, et al. Frontiers in human factors: Integrating human factors and ergonomics to improve safety and quality in Latin American healthcare systems. Int J Qual Heal Care. 2021;33(Sup. 1):45-50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzaa135
24. Roscoe RD, Chiou EK, Wooldridge AR. Advancing diversity, inclusion, and social justice through human systems engineering. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2019.
25. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS, editors. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2000; 2001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17226/9728
26. Human Factors ans Ergonomics Society. What is Human Factors and Ergonomics? [internet]; 2001 [citado 2024 jul. 25]. Disponible en: https://www.hfes.org/About-HFES/What-is-Human-Factors-and-Ergonomics
27. Cohen TN, Gewertz BL, Shouhed D. A human factors approach to surgical patient safety. Surg Clin North Am [internet]. 2021;101(1):1-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suc.2020.09.006
28. Catchpole K, Bowie P, Fouquet S, et al. Frontiers in human factors: Embedding specialists in multi-disciplinary efforts to improve healthcare. Int J Qual Health Care. 2021;12:33(Supl. 1):13-18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzaa108
29. Aceves-González C, Landa-Ávila IC, Carvalho, F., et al.. Ergonomía en los sistemas de salud de América Latina: revisión sistemática de la situación actual, necesidades y desafíos futuros. Ergon. Investig. Desarro. 2021;3(2):10-27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29393/EID3-11ESCG5001
30. IBEAS: red pionera en la seguridad del paciente en Latinoamérica. Hacia una atención hospitalaria más segura. Ginebra, Suiza: Organización Mundial de la Salud [internet]; 2010 [citado 2024 jun. 30]. Disponible en: https://www3.paho.org/hq/dmdocuments/2017/who-ibeas-report-es.pdf
31. Sociedad de Ergonomistas de México [internet]. 2024 [citado 2024 may. 16]. Disponible en: https://www.semac.org.mx/
32. Oldland E, Botti M, et al. A framework of nurses’ responsibilities for quality healthcare — Exploration of content validity. Collegian [internet]. 2020;27(2):150-63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colegn.2019.07.007
33. Stanley JM, Gannon J, Gabuat J, et al. The clinical nurse leader: A catalyst for improving quality and patient safety. J Nurs Manag. 2008;16(5):614-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2008.00899.x
34. Labrague LJ. Influence of nurse managers’ toxic leadership behaviours on nurse-reported adverse events and quality of care. J Nurs Manag. 2021;29(4):855-63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13228
35. Abraham J, Duffy C, Kandasamy M, et al. An evidence synthesis on perioperative Handoffs: A call for balanced sociotechnical solutions. Int J Med Inform. 2023;174:105038. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2023.105038
36. Health Services Safety Investigations Body. Never events: Analysis of HSIB’s National investigations [internet]; 2021 [citado 2024 jun. 30]. Disponible en: https://www.hssib.org.uk/patient-safety-investigations/never-events-analysis-of-hsibs-national-investigations/
37. Kahneman D. Thinking, fast and slow.Nueva York: Macmillan; 2011.
38. Thirsk LM, Panchuk JT, et al. Cognitive and implicit biases in nurses’ judgment and decision-making: A scoping review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2022;133:104284. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2022.104284
39. Whelehan DF, Conlon KC, Ridgway PF. Medicine and heuristics: Cognitive biases and medical decision-making. Ir J Med Sci. 2020;189(4):1477-84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-020-02235-1
40. Dickison P, Haerling K, Lasater K. Integrating the National Council of State Boards of nursing clinical judgment model into nursing educational frameworks. J Nurs Educ. 2019;58(2):72-78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20190122-03
41. McLeod RW. 4 - An introduction to HFE. En: Designing for human reliability: Human factors engineering in the oil, gas, and process industries. Boston: Gulf Professional Publishing [internet]; 2015 [citado 2023 dic. 11]. pp. 4568. Disponible en: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128024218000047
42. Edwards RT, Lawrence CL. “What You See is All There is”: The Importance of Heuristics in Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) and Social Return on Investment (SROI) in the Evaluation of Public Health Interventions. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2021;19(5):653–64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-021-00653-5
43. Bulechek GM, Butcher HK. Nursing interventions classification (NIC). 5.a ed. Madrid: Elsevier; 2009.
44. Douglas HE, Raban MZ, et al. Improving our understanding of multi-tasking in healthcare: Drawing together the cognitive psychology and healthcare literature. Appl Ergon. 2017;59:45–55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.08.021
45. Weigl M, Müller A, et al. Participant observation of time allocation, direct patient contact and simultaneous activities in hospital physicians. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9:1-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-9-110
46. Göras C, Olin K, Unbeck M, et al. Tasks, multitasking and interruptions among the surgical team in an operating room: A prospective observational study. BMJ Open. 2019;9(5):e026410. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026410
47. Ely JW, Graber ML, Croskerry P. Checklists to Reduce Diagnostic Errors. Acad Med. 2011;86(3):307-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0b013e31820824cd
48. Poveda V de B, Lemos C de S, Lopes SG, et al. Implementation of a surgical safety checklist in Brazil: Cross-sectional study. Rev. Bras. Enferm. 2021. 74(2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7167-2019-0874
49. Rostenberg B, Barach PR. Design of cardiovascular operating rooms for tomorrow’s technology and clinical practice — Part 2. Prog Pediatr Cardiol. 2012;33(1):57-65. Disponible en: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1058981311000944
50. Neumann J, Angrick C, Höhn C, et al. Surgical workflow simulation for the design and assessment of operating room setups in orthopedic surgery. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2020;20(1):145. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-020-1086-3
51. Chraibi A, Osman IH, Kharraja S. Adaptive layout for operating theatre in hospitals: Different mathematical models for optimal layouts. Ann Oper Res. 2019;272:493-527. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-018-2799-x
52. Dickerman KN, Barach P. Designing the built environment for a culture and system of patient safety – A conceptual, new design process [internet]. Henriksen K, Battles JB, Keyes MA, et al., editors. Advances in Patient Safety: New Directions and Alternative Approaches (Vol. 2: Culture and Redesign). Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US) [internet]; 2008 [citado 2024 may. 4]. Disponible en: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK43713/
53. Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch. Implantation of wrong prostheses during joint replacement surgery. United Kingdom [internet]; 2018 [citado 2024 jun. 30]. Disponible en: https://www.hssib.org.uk/patient-safety-investigations/implantation-of-wrong-prostheses-during-joint-replacement-surgery/
54. Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch. Placement of nasogastric tubes. United Kingdom [internet]; 2020 [citado 2024/06/30]. [citado 2024 jun 306]. Disponible en: https://www.hssib.org.uk/patient-safety-investigations/placement-of-nasogastric-tubes/
55. Campos PI, Gutiérrez H, Matzumara JP. Rotación y desempeño laboral de los profesionales de enfermería en un instituto especializado. Rev Cuid. 2019;10(2):1–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15649/cuidarte.v10i2.626
56. Chen S, Wu W, Chang C, Lin C. Job rotation and internal marketing for increased job satisfaction and organisational commitment in hospital nursing staff. J Nurs Manag. 2015;23(3):297-306. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12126
57. Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch. Detection of retained vaginal swabs and tampons following childbirth. United Kingdom [internet]; 2018 [citado 2024 jun. 30]. Disponible en: https://www.hssib.org.uk/patient-safety-investigations/detection-of-retained-vaginal-swabs-and-tampons-following-childbirth/
58. Valls-Matarín J, Salamero-Amorós M, Roldán-Gil C. Análisis de la carga de trabajo y uso de los recursos enfermeros en una unidad de cuidados intensivos. Enferm Intensiva. 2015;26(2):72–81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enfi.2015.02.002
59. Siqueira EMP, Ribeiro MD, Souza RCS, et al. Correlação entre carga de trabalho de enfermagem e gravidade dos pacientes críticos gerais, neurológicos e cardiológicos. Escola Anna Nery; 2015;19(2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.5935/1414-8145.20150030
60. Greenberg CC, Regenbogen SE, Lipsitz SR, et al. The frequency and significance of discrepancies in the surgical count. Ann Surg. 2008;248(2):337–41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e318181c9a3
61. Joint Commission. Preventing unintended retained foreign objects. Sentinel Event Alert. 2013;(51):1–5.
62. Fencl JL. Guideline implementation: Prevention of retained surgical items. AORN J. 2016;104(1):37–48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aorn.2016.05.005
63. Schwappach D, Pfeiffer Y. Root causes and preventability of unintentionally retained foreign objects after surgery: A national expert survey from Switzerland. Patient Saf Surg. 2023;17(1):15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13037-023-00366-9
64. World Health Organization. Más que palabras. Marco conceptual de la clasificación internacional para la seguridad del paciente. Informe técnico definitivo. Enero de 2009 [internet]. 2009 [citado 2023 ago. 29]. Disponible en: http://www.who.int/patientsafety/implementation/icps/icps_full_report_es.pdf
65. Vincent C, Moorthy K, Sarker SK, et al. Systems approaches to surgical quality and safety: From concept to measurement. Ann Surg. 2004;239(4):475-82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000118753.22830.41
66. Stawicki SP, Cook CH, Anderson HL, et al. Natural history of retained surgical items supports the need for team training, early recognition, and prompt retrieval. Am J Surg [internet]. 2014;208(1):65–72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2013.09.029
67. Rodríguez, Y., & Hignett, S. Integration of human factors/ergonomics in healthcare systems: A giant leap in safety as a key strategy during Covid‐19. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries. 2021;31(5), 570-576
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Categorias
Licença
Copyright (c) 2024 Universidad de Antioquia
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
El autor o los autores conserva(n) los derechos morales y cede(n) los derechos patrimoniales que corresponderán a la Universidad de Antioquia, para publicarlo, distribuir copias electrónicas, incluirlas en servicios de indización, directorios o bases de datos nacionales e internacionales en Acceso Abierto, bajo la licencia Creative Commons Atribución-No Comercial-Compartir Igual 4.0 Internacional Comercial (CC BY-NC-SA) la cual permite a otros distribuir, remezclar, retocar y crear a partir de la obra de modo no comercial, siempre y cuando se dé crédito respectivo y licencien las nuevas creaciones bajo las mismas condiciones.
--
--
--
