Skip to main content
Log in

Intraoperative Consultation as an Instrument of Quality Management

  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

This study was designed to investigate the effectiveness of intraoperative consultation (IOC) with regard to its feasibility for improving quality management. IOC comprises an assessment of major steps in the operative procedure by another surgeon requested by the operating surgeon to be present in the operating room in a consultative capacity during the operation.

Methods

Between January and June 2008, IOC was implemented in 1217 operations. Data on the frequency of the feasibility of IOC and on whether IOC led to decisions influencing the course of the procedure were measured.

Results

A total of 872 IOCs were performed: regular IOC in 708 cases (81%), and tactical IOC in 164 cases (19%). In 70 cases (8%), consultation resulted in minor changes, and in 59 cases (7%) major clinically relevant revision of the operative strategy was deemed necessary.

Conclusions

It was found that IOC can be performed in the majority of cases. In the case of tactical IOC in particular, a large number of treatment-relevant decisions are taken. This means that in the area of operative disciplines, IOC represents a potential preventive strategy within the framework of quality management.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ekkernkamp A, Haeske-Seeberg H (1999) Quality management in surgery. Chirurg 70:102–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Jähne J (2006) Does internal quality control reduce mistakes and complications? A plea for structured surgical education and increased transparency in clinical day-to-day work. Zentralbl Chir 131:354–357

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Catchpole KR, Giddings AE, Wilkinson M et al (2007) Improving patient safety by identifying latent failures in successful operations. Surgery 142:102–110

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gore DC (2006) National survey of surgical morbidity and mortality conferences. Am J Surg 191:708–714

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Veen EJ, Janssen-Heijnen ML, Leenen LP et al (2005) The registration of complications in surgery: a learning curve. World J Surg 29:402–409

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Riedl S (2002) Modern operations management in workflow operation. Spectrum of responsibilities and challenges for the future. Chirurg 73:105–110

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Siess M (2003) Quality management in surgery–quo vadis? Chirurg 74:499–500

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Giessling U, Petersen S, Freitag M et al (2002) Surgical management of severe peritonitis. Zentralbl Chir 127:594–597

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Teichmann W, Herbig B (1994) Relaparotomie. In: Lierse W, Platzer W, Schreiber HW (eds) Chirurgische Operationslehre. Thieme, Stuttgart, pp 173–189

    Google Scholar 

  10. Maschuw K, Osei-Agyemang T, Weyers P et al (2008) The impact of self-belief on laparoscopic performance of novices and experienced surgeons. World J Surg 32:1911–1916

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hamdorf JM, Hall JC (2000) Acquiring surgical skills. Br J Surg 87:28–37

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Alkov RA, Boroswsky MS, Williamson DW et al (1992) The effect of trans-cockpit authority gradient on Navy/Marine helicopter mishaps. Aviat Space Environ Med 63:659–661

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Yule S, Flin R, Paterson-Brown S et al (2006) Non-technical skills for surgeons in the operating room: a review of the literature. Surgery 139:140–149

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Heistermann HP, Tobusch A, Palmes D (2006) Prevention of bile duct injuries after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. “The critical view of safety”. Zentralbl Chir 131:460–465

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Hall JC, Ellis C, Hamdorf J (2003) Surgeons and cognitive processes. Br J Surg 90:10–16

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Dambier M, Hinkelbein J (2006) Analysis of 2004 German general aviation aircraft accidents according to the HFACS model. Air Med J 25:265–269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Müller M (2004) Risk and risk management in aviation. Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich 98:559–565

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sven Petersen.

Additional information

Presented in parts at the 125th Congress of the German Society of Surgery, Berlin, Germany, April 23, 2008.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Teichmann, W., Rost, W., Thieme, D. et al. Intraoperative Consultation as an Instrument of Quality Management. World J Surg 33, 6–11 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-008-9786-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-008-9786-3

Keywords

Navigation