Specifying Time-Out Points in Surgical EMRs–Work in Progress

  • Bo Yu
  • J. Varga
  • Duminda Wijesekera
  • Angelos Stavrou
  • Anoop Singhal
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 221)


Workflows for surgical procedures have built-in time-out points to minimize occurrences of unintended faults and omissions during surgeries. They have been recommended in the best practices of appropriate surgical sub-specialties, as well as the Joint Commission. At these timeout points, designated team members perform recommended precautionary measures, such as verifying the accuracy of implants, to ensure unintended mistakes are not made before proceeding to the next stage. These precautionary measures are usually recorded in paper-based checklists and retained for a stipulated period of time. We show how these timeout points can be specified as formal workflow requirements in surgical Electronic Medical Records (S-EMRs).


Surgical EMR Time-out points Surgical Errors 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Institute of Medicine: Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. National Academy Press, Washington, DC (2002) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ): Improving Health Care Quality - Fact Sheet, AHRQ Pub. No. 02-P032 (2002) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Makary, M.A., Sexton, J.B., et al.: Patient safety in surgery. Ann. Surg. 243, 628–632 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kohn, K.T., Corrigan, J.M., Donaldson, M.S.: To err is human: Building a Safety health system. National Academy Press, Washington, DC (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Neily, J., et al.: Incorrect Surgical Procedures Within and Outside of the Operating Room. Archives of Surgery 144(11), 1028–1034 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haynes, A.B., Weiser, T.G., et al.: A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. N. Engl. J. Med. 360, 491–499 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Semel, M.E., Resch, S., et al.: Adopting a surgical safety checklist could save money and improve the quality of care in U.S. hospitals. Health Affairs 29(9), 1593–1599 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lingard, L., Regehr, G., et al.: Evaluation of a preoperative checklist and team briefing among surgeons, nurses and anesthesiologist to reduce failures in communication. Archives of Surgery 143(1), 12–17 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Statement on ensuring correct patient, correct site, and correct procedure surgery. Bull. Am. Coll. Surg. 87(12), 26 (2002) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wrong site surgery and the Universal Protocol. Bull. Am. Coll. Surg. 91(11), 63 (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    World Alliance for Patient Safety. WHO guidelines for safe surgery. World Health Organization, Geneva (2008) Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Agarwal, S., Joshi, A., et al.: A Pervasive Computing System for the Operating Room of the Future. Mobile Networks and Applications 12(2/3), 215–228 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bardram, J.E., Nørskov, N.: A context-aware patient safety system for the operating room. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing, pp. 272–281. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ardissono, L., Leva, A.D., Petrone, G., et al.: Adaptive medical workflow management for a context-dependent home healthcare assistance service. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science (ENTCS) 146(1), 59–68 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dazzi, L., Stefanelli, M.: A patient workflow management system built on guidelines. In Proc. of AMIA 1997, pp. 146–150 (1997) Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Poulymenopoulou, M., Vassilacopoulos, G.: A Web-based Workflow System for Emergency Healthcare. In: Medical Informatics Europ. (2002) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Workflow M C: The workflow reference model [WfMC1003]. WFMC TC00 – 1003 (1994) Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Etchells, E., O’Neill, C., Bernstein, M.: Patient safety in surgery: error detection and prevention. World J. Surg. 27, 936–941 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Christian, C., Gustafon, M., Roth, E., et al.: A prospective study of patient safety in the operating room. Surgery 139, 159–173 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Seiden, S.C., Barach, P.: Wrong-side/wrong-site, wrong-procedure, and wrong-patient adverse events: are they preventable? Arch. Surg. 141(9), 931–939 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    UML Specification (March 1999),, referenced V1.3 Alpha R5
  22. 22.
    Sindre, G., Opdahl, A.L.: Templates for Misuse Case Description. In: Proc. 7th Int’l Workshop Requirements Eng.: Foundation for Software Quality (REFSQ 2001) (2001) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bo Yu
    • 1
  • J. Varga
    • 1
  • Duminda Wijesekera
    • 1
  • Angelos Stavrou
    • 1
  • Anoop Singhal
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceGeroge Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA
  2. 2.National Institute of Standards and TechnologyGaithersburgUSA

Personalised recommendations