AzTrials
AzTrials

Surgical Complication NecNCT02837224

Effectiveness of a RF Sponge Detection

An observational study of Surgical Complication Nec, run by University of Iowa.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

Retained surgical items (e.g. sponges, needles, and instruments) remain the most frequently reported serious adverse event for five of the last six years. Retained surgical sponges have resulted in negative patient outcomes (reoperation, readmission/prolonged hospital stay, infection, fistulas/ bowel obstructions, and… Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Any ageHealthy volunteers can take part
Conditions the study is for
Surgical Complication Nec
What is being tested?
The Situate Detection System
Type of treatment
Medical device
How many people
27,637 participants
Where
No sites listed yet
Study dates
Aug 2016to 31 May 2017
Phase
Observational
Are there results?
None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages Any age
  • All sexes
  • Healthy volunteers accepted
  • Child, Adult, Older adult

Study population: Surgical patients

Who may be able to join

  • We estimate including 27,000 patients during the total of 18 months.
  • The first part of the sample will be retrospective, all patients undergoing surgery in the Main Operating Room during a 9 month period of time of the RF sponge detection system (February through October, 2014) This time frame was selected to allow inclusion of data from our previous study.
  • The second part of the sample will be prospective, for nine months after implementation of the RF sponge detection system.

Who cannot join

  • ophthalmology, dentistry, non-surgical procedures, aborted surgical procedures, surgeries during which the patient expired, and surgeries performed outside of the Main Operating Room.

About this study

Official title: Effectiveness of a Radiofrequency Surgical Sponge Detection System for Preventing Retained Surgical Sponges

Retained surgical items (e.g. sponges, needles, and instruments) remain the most frequently reported serious adverse event for five of the last six years. Retained surgical sponges have resulted in negative patient outcomes (reoperation, readmission/prolonged hospital stay, infection, fistulas/ bowel obstructions, and death). The national standard for prevention of retained surgical sponges relies heavily on manual counting several times before, during, and after the surgical procedure. If a sponge is missing, a series of steps are taken to reconcile the count. These steps require extra time and pull personnel away from other competing priorities. If the final closing count remains incorrect, it is common practice to obtain an intraoperative radiograph to rule out retention of a surgical sponge. This X-Ray is expensive and increases the time required for the surgery.

Novel technology using a radiofrequency (RF) is now available for detecting and preventing retained surgical sponges. The objective of this study is to evaluate the in-use effectiveness of a radiofrequency (RF) surgical sponge detection system for reducing the cost of searching for sponges and prevention of incorrect counts.

Read the detailed description

Background:

Retained surgical items (e.g. sponges, needles, and instruments) remain one of the sentinel events most frequently reported to The Joint Commission, and are estimated to occur in 1: 5500 surgeries. These serious adverse events have resulted in negative patient outcomes (reoperation, readmission/prolonged hospital stay, infection or sepsis, fistulas/ bowel obstructions, visceral perforation, and death). Cotton gauze sponges account for 48-69% of retained surgical items, and result in more serious tissue reaction than metal items. The national standard for prevention of retained surgical sponges relies heavily on manual counting, a process that occurs prior to incision, at the time of closing a cavity within a cavity, closing the first layer of tissue, and closing skin. The immediate outcome of the closing counts is either correct or unresolved. If unresolved, a series of steps are taken to reconcile the count (surgeon notified, wound searched, sterile field searched, room searched, count repeated). These steps require extra time and effort, pulling personnel away from other competing priorities. If the final closing count remains incorrect, it is common practice to obtain an intraoperative radiograph to rule out retention of a surgical sponge. The practice of searching for misplaced sponges and using radiography to rule out the presence of a retained sponge extend the operating time and add to costs associated care of the patient in surgery. Novel technology is now available for detecting and preventing retained surgical sponges. The technology uses a radiofrequency (RF) chip in the sponge, and a mat or wand that scans the patient for a sponge. Only one clinical trial has evaluated the in-use effectiveness of this RF technology. No retained sponges occurred during the 18 month trial. However the sample size was not large enough to determine significance.

Primary Objective:

The objective in this Health Services Research is to evaluate the in-use effectiveness of a radiofrequency (RF) surgical sponge detection system for reducing the cost of searching for sponges and prevention of incorrect counts.

Specific Aims are:

  1. To compare the estimated time and cost of searching for sponges and using radiography to rule out the presence of retained sponges before and after implementation of a RF sponge detection system.
  2. To compare the incidence of incorrect final closing counts before and after implementation of a RF sponge detection system.

Study Design:

Using deidentified existing data, investigators propose a quasiexperimental study evaluating the outcomes of using RF surgical sponge detection system. The setting is the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, a 711-bed academic medical center, a Level 1 trauma center, located in Iowa City, Iowa. The University of Iowa Institutional Review Board has determined that this study does not meet the regulatory definition of human subjects research.

Primary Endpoints

  1. The estimated time and cost of searching for sponges and using radiography to rule out the presence of retained surgical sponges.
  2. The frequency of incorrect final closing sponge counts.

Data for individual patients will be recorded by the circulating nurses in a questionnaire embedded in the surgical log of Epic Systems®, module Optime®. The questionnaire will consist of three individual counts: initial closing, final closing, and additional count. If the first question, "was a search required" is answered "yes", four subsequent questions will be asked: type of sponge, actions taken, number of minutes required, and the location of the sponge if found. Data will be retrieved from the Health Information System (HIS) using S.A.P. ® Business Objects™ (surgical volume, surgical service) and Crystal reports (details about searches for sponges). Incorrect final closing counts are documented in the Patient Safety Net® electronic event reporting system. Data will be retrieved from events reported within the category of "count incomplete or not done" and "count incorrect". Data will be retrieved by HIS personnel and provided via a report to the Director of Clinical Functions responsible for the Main Operating Room. This report is part of the quality improvement program. Electronic data will be stored in the College of Nursing, the University of Iowa, on the college's secure server. Data will be cleaned by a data manager and analyzed by the college's statistician.

Analysis:

Aim 1: Minutes of time spent searching for misplaced sponges will be analyzed using ranges, means, and standard deviations. Comparison before and after implementation of the RF detection technology will be described as percentages and analyzed using chi square with Yates correction. To provide the best estimate of the resources used in searching for sponges, investigators will use published data on operating room costs per minute to estimate search costs ($17.23). However, there are significant differences across institutions. To accommodate this broad range of potential adopters of this RF detection technology and show differences in potential cost-effectiveness, in addition to using the average estimate of operating room time cost from the literature, investigators will construct lower bound and upper bound estimates of the operating room time costs to provide a range of cost estimates to use in assessing the RF detection technology intervention.

Investigators further adjust search costs for variation in practices during searches. At times surgeons continue with the procedure (e.g. closing the wound) while in other cases surgeons will assist with efforts to locate the sponge. As investigators are interested in time spent on non-productive searches, investigators will use a range of estimates of non-productive search costs. Investigators start with 100% non-productive and also estimate based on 75% non-productive (25% of the search time moving forward with the procedure) and 50% non-productive (50% of the search time moving forward with the procedure). Investigators will use the average radiography costs from published literature ($286) in addition to the operating room time associated with obtaining an intraoperative radiograph (30minutes). All times and costs will be analyzed using ranges, means, and standard deviations. Comparison before and after implementation of the RF detection technology will be described as percentages and analyzed using chi square with Yates correction.

Aim 2: To compare the incidence of incorrect final closing counts The number of incorrect final closing counts before and after implementation of a RF sponge detection system will be analyzed using ranges, means, and standard deviations. Comparison before and after implementation of the RF detection technology will be described as percentages and analyzed using chi square with Yates correction.

Being tested
The Situate Detection System
Keywords
retained surgical sponge, adverse event
Medical subject headings
Foreign Bodies

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • The Situate Detection SystemDevice

    Also called RF Assure

    The Situate Detection System for locating surgical sponges

Study groups in NCT02837224
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Preimplementation: Situate Locate SystemSubjects/surgeries performed before implementation of the Situate Detection System.
ImplementationSubjects/surgeries performed after implementation of the Situate Detection System.
Receives: Device: The Situate Detection System

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Time spent searching for sponges

    The total annualized number of operating room minutes spent searching for missing surgical sponges

    Measured: 6 months after study start

  2. Cost of time spent searching for sponges

    The total annualized cost of operating room time spent searching for sponges

    Measured: 6 months after study start

  3. Time spent using radiography to rule out the presence of a retained sponge

    The total annualized number of operating room minutes spent ruling out the presence of a retained sponge using radiography

    Measured: 6 months after study start

  4. Cost of using radiography to rule out the presence of a retained sponge

    The total annualized cost of operating room time and radiography spent ruling out the presence of a retained sponge

    Measured: 6 months after study start

  5. Incorrect final counts

    The frequency of incorrect final closing counts of surgical sponges.

    Measured: 6 months after study start

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted19 Jul 2016 (estimated)
  2. Study startAug 2016
  3. Primary completion31 May 2017
  4. Study completion31 May 2017

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Observational
Observational model
Other
Time perspective
Retrospective
Enrolment
27,637 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT02837224
Sponsor's protocol ID
201602723
Status last verified
Oct 2017
First submitted
7 Jul 2016
Last updated
30 Nov 2017
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
Individual data sharing
No

Publications

  • 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 Jul;207(1):80-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.12.047. Epub 2008 May 23.

    PubMed 18589366
  • Gawande AA, Studdert DM, Orav EJ, Brennan TA, Zinner MJ. Risk factors for retained instruments and sponges after surgery. N Engl J Med. 2003 Jan 16;348(3):229-35. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa021721.

    PubMed 12529464
  • Lincourt AE, Harrell A, Cristiano J, Sechrist C, Kercher K, Heniford BT. Retained foreign bodies after surgery. J Surg Res. 2007 Apr;138(2):170-4. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2006.08.001. Epub 2007 Feb 1.

    PubMed 17275034
  • Guideline for prevention of retained surgical items. In: AORN, ed. Guidelines for Perioperative Practice. 2014 ed. Denver, CO: Association of periOperative Registered Nurses; 2016.

  • Williams TL, Tung DK, Steelman VM, Chang PK, Szekendi MK. Retained surgical sponges: findings from incident reports and a cost-benefit analysis of radiofrequency technology. J Am Coll Surg. 2014 Sep;219(3):354-64. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2014.03.052. Epub 2014 May 10.

    PubMed 25081938
  • Steelman VM, Schaapveld AG, Perkhounkova Y, Storm HE, Mathias M. The Hidden Costs of Reconciling Surgical Sponge Counts. AORN J. 2015 Nov;102(5):498-506. doi: 10.1016/j.aorn.2015.09.002.

    PubMed 26514707
  • Rupp CC, Kagarise MJ, Nelson SM, Deal AM, Phillips S, Chadwick J, Petty T, Meyer AA, Kim HJ. Effectiveness of a radiofrequency detection system as an adjunct to manual counting protocols for tracking surgical sponges: a prospective trial of 2,285 patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2012 Oct;215(4):524-33. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.06.014. Epub 2012 Jul 6.

    PubMed 22770865
  • Hart S, Hashemi L, Sobolewski CJ. Effect of a disposable automated suturing device on cost and operating room time in benign total laparoscopic hysterectomy procedures. JSLS. 2013 Oct-Dec;17(4):508-16. doi: 10.4293/108680813X13693422522231.

    PubMed 24398190
  • Dossett LA, Dittus RS, Speroff T, May AK, Cotton BA. Cost-effectiveness of routine radiographs after emergent open cavity operations. Surgery. 2008 Aug;144(2):317-21. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2008.03.012. Epub 2008 Jun 5.

    PubMed 18656641

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

An observational study of Surgical Complication Nec, run by University of Iowa.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 30 Nov 2017. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Time spent searching for sponges (time frame: 6 months after study start). The study lists 5 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02837224, which also lists 9 linked publications.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 30 Nov 2017.

Free account

Keep searching with a free account

You’ve used your 3 free searches for this session. Log in or create a free AzTrials account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in