Assessment of radiofrequency device sensitivity for the detection of retained surgical sponges in patients with morbid obesity

Archives of Surgery

Volumn 147, Issue 10, 2012, Pages 955-960

  Steelman, Victoria M ^a   Alasagheirin, Mohammad H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA COLLEGE OF NURSING   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ABDOMEN; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BODY MASS; CAUCASIAN; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROSSOVER PROCEDURE; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTRAOPERATIVE PERIOD; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MORBID OBESITY; OPERATION DURATION; PATIENT SAFETY; PERITONEAL CAVITY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RADIATION EQUIPMENT; RADIOFREQUENCY; RADIOFREQUENCY IDENTIFICATION; RADIOFREQUENCY MAT; RETAINED INSTRUMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SUPINE POSITION; SURGICAL SPONGE; TRUNK;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; CROSS-OVER STUDIES; DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; FOREIGN BODIES; HUMANS; MALE; MEDICAL ERRORS; MIDDLE AGED; MONITORING, INTRAOPERATIVE; OBESITY, MORBID; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RADIO WAVES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SURGICAL SPONGES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84867632567     PISSN: 00040010     EISSN: 15383644     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.2012.1556     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Joint Commission.Sentinel event data: general information: 1995-third quarter2011 .http://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/18/General-Information- 1995-3Q2011.pdf. Accessed January 25, 2012.
2. Cima RR, Kollengode A, Garnatz J, Storsveen A, Weisbrod C, Deschamps C. Incidence and characteristics of potential and actual retained foreign object events in surgical patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;207(1):80-87.
3. Gawande AA, Studdert DM, Orav EJ, Brennan TA, Zinner MJ. Risk factors for retained instruments and sponges after surgery. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(3):229-235. (Pubitemid 36077919)
4. Lincourt AE, Harrell A, Cristiano J, Sechrist C, Kercher K, Heniford BT. Retained foreign bodies after surgery. J Surg Res. 2007;138(2):170-174. (Pubitemid 46365726)
5. Kaiser CW, Friedman S, Spurling KP, Slowick T, Kaiser HA. The retained surgical sponge. Ann Surg. 1996;224(1):79-84. (Pubitemid 26227411)
6. National Quality Forum. National Quality Forum updates endorsement of serious reportable events in healthcare [press release]. October 16, 2006. http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/WSJ-PRSeriousReportableEvents10-15- 06.pdf. Accessed July 20, 2012.
7. Joint Commission. Sentinel event policy and procedures. http://www.jointcommission.org/Sentinel-Event-Policy-and-Procedures/. Accessed January 25, 2012.
8. National Academy for State Health Policy. Authorizing statutes or regulations. http://www.nashp.org/pst-tools/861/Authorizing-statutes-or- regulations.Accessed January 27, 2012.
9. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Hospital-acquired conditions (present on admission indicator). January 30, 2008. http: //www .cms .gov /Medicare/Medicare- Fee- for- Service-Payment/HospitalAcqCond/index. html ?redirect=/HospitalAcqCond /. Accessed July 20, 2012.
10. Association of Perioperative Registered Nurses edRecommended practices for prevention of retained surgical items. In: Perioperative Standards and Recommended Practices for Inpatient and Ambulatory Settings. 2011 ed. Denver, CO: AORN; 2011:263-282.
11. Steelman VM, Cullen JJ. Designing a safer process to prevent retained surgical sponges: a healthcare failure mode and effect analysis. AORN J. 2011;94(2):132-141.
12. 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.
13. Steelman VM. Sensitivity of detection of radiofrequency surgical sponges: a prospective, cross-over study. Am J Surg. 2011;201(2):233-237.
14. Li J, Fine J. On sample size for sensitivity and specificity in prospective diagnostic accuracy studies. Stat Med. 2004;23(16):2537-2550. (Pubitemid 39149266)
15. Julious SA. Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods by Robert G. Newcombe, Statistics in Medicine 1998; 17:857-872. Stat Med. 2005;24(21):3383-3384. (Pubitemid 41548987)
16. RomanoPS, Geppert JJ, Davies S, MillerMR,Elixhauser A,McDonaldKM. Anational profile of patient safety in U.S. hospitals. Health Aff (Millwood). 2003;22(2):154-166. (Pubitemid 41399283)
17. Greenberg CC, Regenbogen SE, Lipsitz SR, Diaz-Flores R, Gawande AA. The frequency and significance of discrepancies in the surgical count. Ann Surg. 2008;248(2):337-341.
18. Dossett LA, Dittus RS, Speroff T, May AK, Cotton BA. Cost-effectiveness of routine radiographs after emergent open cavity operations. Surgery. 2008;144(2):317-321.
19. Macario A, Morris D, Morris S. Initial clinical evaluation of a handheld device for detecting retained surgical gauze sponges using radiofrequency identification technology. Arch Surg. 2006;141(7):659-662. (Pubitemid 44079827)