Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Design and evaluation of an interactive training system for scrub nurses

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The current trend toward increasingly integrated technological support systems and the rise of streamlined processes in the OR have led to a growing demand for personnel with higher levels of training. Although simulation systems are widely used and accepted in surgical training, they are practically non-existent for perioperative nursing, especially scrub nursing. This paper describes and evaluates an interactive OR environment simulation to help train scrub nurses.

Methods

A system comprising multiple computers and monitors, including an interactive table and a touchscreen combined with a client–server software solution, was designed to simulate a scrub nurse’s workplace. The resulting demonstrator was evaluated under laboratory conditions with a multicenter interview study involving three participating ear, nose, and throat (ENT) departments in Germany and Switzerland.

Results

The participant group of 15 scrub nurses had an average of 12.8 years hands-on experience in the OR. A series of 22 questions was used to evaluate various aspects of the demonstrator system and its suitability for training novices.

Discussion

The system received very positive feedback. The participants stated that familiarization with instrument names and learning the instrument table setup were the two most important technical topics for beginners. They found the system useful for acquiring these skills as well as certain non-technical aspects.

Conclusions

Interactive training through simulation is a new approach for preparing novice scrub nurses for the challenges at the instrument table in the OR. It can also improve the lifelong training of perioperative personnel. The proposed system is currently unique in its kind. It can be used to train both technical and non-technical skills and, therefore, contributes to patient safety. Moreover, it is not dependent on a specific type of surgical intervention or medical discipline.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. German: Dipl. Fachfrau/-mann Operationstechnik.

  2. German: technische(r) Operationsassistent(in) (TOA).

References

  1. Cleary K, Kinsella A, Mun SK (2005) OR 2020 workshop report: operating room of the future. International Congress series, vol 1281, pp 832–838

  2. Archer T, Macario A (2006) The drive for operating room efficiency will increase quality of patient care. Curr Opin Anesthesiol 19(2):171–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Barbash GI, Glied SA (2010) New technology and health care costs—the case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med 363(8):701–704

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sutherland J, Van den Heuvel W (2006) Towards an intelligent hospital environment: adaptive workflow in the OR of the future. In: Proceedings of the 39th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, 2006. HICSS’06, vol 5, p 100b

  5. Granger J, Hebb T, Lavallee R, Murray M (2011) Team training simulation in perioperative nursing education. Can Oper Room Nurs J 29(2):6–8, 10–11, 14 passim

  6. Trice LB, Brandvold C, Bruno E (2007) Practice and education: partnering to address the perioperative nursing shortage. AORN J 86(2):259–264

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Chang EM, Hancock KM, Johnson A, Daly J, Jackson D (2005) Role stress in nurses: review of related factors and strategies for moving forward. Nurs Health Sci 7(1):57–65

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sanford PG (2010) Simulation in nursing education: a review of the research. Qual Rep 15(4):1006–1011

    Google Scholar 

  9. Stahl JE, Egan MT, Goldman JM, Tenney D, Wiklund RA, Sandberg WS, Gazelle S, Rattner DW (2005) Introducing new technology into the operating room: measuring the impact on job performance and satisfaction. Surgery 137(5):518–526

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kneebone R (2005) Evaluating clinical simulations for learning procedural skills: a theory-based approach. Acad Med 80(6):549–553

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Flurry M, Brooke S, Micholetti B, Natoli N, Moyer K, Mnich S, Potochny J (2012) Nurse training with simulation: an innovative approach to teach complex microsurgery patient care. Ann Plast Surg 69(4):459–461

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kenny A (2002) Online learning: enhancing nurse education? J Adv Nurs 38(2):127–135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sutherland LM, Middleton PF, Anthony A, Hamdorf J, Cregan P, Scott D, Maddern GJ (2006) Surgical simulation: a systematic review. Ann Surg 243(3):291

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Hanly EJ, Marohn MR, Bachman SL, Talamini MA, Hacker SO, Howard RS, Schenkman NS (2004) Multiservice laparoscopic surgical training using the da Vinci surgical system. Am J Surg 187(2):309–315

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lerner MA, Ayalew M, Peine WJ, Sundaram CP (2010) Does training on a virtual reality robotic simulator improve performance on the da Vinci surgical system? J Endourol 24(3):467–472

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sturm LP, Windsor JA, Cosman PH, Cregan P, Hewett PJ, Maddern GJ (2008) A systematic review of skills transfer after surgical simulation training. Ann Surg 248(2):166–179

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Palter VN, Grantcharov TP (2010) Simulation in surgical education. CMAJ Can Med Assoc J 182(11):1191–1196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Aggarwal R, Undre S, Moorthy K, Vincent C, Darzi A (2004) The simulated operating theatre: comprehensive training for surgical teams. Qual Saf Health Care 13(suppl 1):i27–i32

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Fort C, Fitzgerald B (2011) How simulation improves perioperative nursing. Nurse 2014 5(2):36–42

    Google Scholar 

  20. Sexton B, Marsch S, Helmreich R, Betzendoerfer D, Kocher T, Scheidegger D, TOMS team (1998) Participant evaluation of team oriented medical simulation. In: Henson LC, Lee AC (eds) Simulators in anesthesiology education. Springer, New York, pp 109–110

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Grenvik A, Schaefer J (2004) From Resusci-Anne to Sim-Man: the evolution of simulators in medicine. Crit Care Med 32(2):S56–S57

  22. Rauen CA (2004) Simulation as a teaching strategy for nursing education and orientation in cardiac surgery. Crit Care Nurse 24(3):46–51

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Moorthy K, Munz Y, Forrest D, Pandey V, Undre S, Vincent C, Darzi A (2006) Surgical crisis management skills training and assessment: a stimulation-based approach to enhancing operating room performance. Ann Surg 244(1):139–147

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Glaser B, Dänzer S, Neumuth T (2014) Intra-operative surgical instrument usage detection on a multi-sensor table. Int Comput Assist Radiol Surg 10(3):351–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Glaser B, Koch L, Schellenberg T, Neumuth T (2014) Eye-tracking analysis of scrub nurse viewing behavior. In: Proceedings of the 5th workshop on modeling and monitoring of computer assisted interventions (M2CAI)

  26. Mitchell L, Flin R (2008) Non-technical skills of the operating theatre scrub nurse: literature review. J Adv Nurs 63(1):15–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mitchell L, Flin R, Yule S, Mitchell J, Coutts K, Youngson G (2011) Thinking ahead of the surgeon. An interview study to identify scrub nurses’ non-technical skills. Int J Nurs Stud 48(7):818–828

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. \(\text{ Microsoft }^{\textregistered }\,\text{ Surface }^{\textregistered }\) 2.0 SDK and Runtime (updated 2 Feb 2012). http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=26716. Accessed 09 Apr 2015

  29. Glaser B, Schellenberg T, Koch L, Hofer M, Modemann S, Dubach P, Neumuth T (2015) Not these scissors, the other scissors. A multi-center study comparing surgical instrument descriptions used by scrub nurses. In: Proceedings of iOR15: 1st international workshop on intelligent operating rooms, 17th international conference on E-health networking, application and services (IEEE Healthcom 2015), Boston, pp 21–25

  30. Stammberger H, Posawetz W (1990) Functional endoscopic sinus surgery—concept, indications and results of the Messerklinger technique. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 247(2):63–76

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the following people for their kind support and dedication. From the Acqua Klinik and the International Reference and Development Center (IRDC) in Leipzig (Germany): Gero Strauß, Iris Gollnick, and Anja Rothe. From the ENT department at Leipzig University Hospital (Germany): Andreas Dietz and Markus Pirlich. From the Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Inselspital, University Hospital of Bern (Switzerland): Marco Caversaccio, Bernd Werle, and Nexhmedin Avdija. From the Institute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Epidemiology (IMISE) in Leipzig (Germany): Kais Tahar. From the Central Sterilization Department at the University Medical Center of Leipzig (Germany): Kerstin Schröter and her team. From the Innovation Center Computer Assisted Surgery (ICCAS) in Leipzig (Germany): Alexander Oeser, Klemens Birnbaum, Mario Cypko, Christoph Zeumer, Jens Meier, Stefan Franke, Max Rockstroh, Michael Unger, and Richard Bieck. ICCAS is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), the Saxon Ministry of Science and Fine Arts (SMWK) in the Unternehmen Region with grant number 03Z1LN12, the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), and the government of Saxony under measures to support the technology sector.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Innovation Center Computer Assisted Surgery (ICCAS), Faculty of Medicine, University of Leipzig, Semmelweisstr. 14, 04103, Leipzig, Germany

    Bernhard Glaser, Tobias Schellenberg, Lucas Koch, Patrick Dubach & Thomas Neumuth

  2. ENT Department, Leipzig University Hospital, Leipzig, Germany

    Mathias Hofer

  3. Acqua Klinik, Leipzig, Germany

    Susanne Modemann

  4. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Inselspital, University Hospital of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

    Patrick Dubach

Authors
  1. Bernhard Glaser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tobias Schellenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lucas Koch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mathias Hofer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Susanne Modemann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Patrick Dubach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Thomas Neumuth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bernhard Glaser.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

This article does not contain patient data.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Glaser, B., Schellenberg, T., Koch, L. et al. Design and evaluation of an interactive training system for scrub nurses. Int J CARS 11, 1527–1536 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-016-1356-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-016-1356-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation