Slashdot Mirror


Bar Codes Keep Surgical Objects Outside Patients

Reservoir Hill writes "Every year about 1,500 people in the US have surgical objects accidentally left inside them after surgery, according to medical studies. To prevent this potentially deadly problem, Loyola University Medical Center is utilizing a new technology that is helping its surgical teams keep track of all sponges used during a surgical procedure. Each sponge has a unique bar code affixed to it that is scanned by a high-tech device to obtain a count. Before a procedure begins, the identification number of the patient and the badge of the surgical team member maintaining the count are scanned into the counter. When a sponge is removed from a patient, it is scanned back into the system. A surgical procedure cannot end until all sponges are accounted for."

27 of 269 comments (clear)

  1. Surgeon accountability? by psued0ch · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We all make mistakes, but surgeons today should have enough skill to ensure that objects are not left in the body in the first place. It seems like another scenario where use of advanced technology replaces basic skills that a human should have in these situations.

    1. Re:Surgeon accountability? by hazem · · Score: 2, Insightful

      i'd much rather the surgeon be worrying about keeping me alive while under the knife, not worrying about how many sponges he has used.

      Well, it's not like they're worried about the number of sponges used so they can charge your insurance more. The problem is that when a sponge is left in the body, it IS a life threatening situation. If you get sewn up with one in you, it becomes a site for serious infections that can lead pretty quickly to death.

      It's also not so hard to imagine one being left in there because you've got this lumpy bloody thing in a body full of lumpy bloody things.

      So yes, you want the surgeon focusing on your procedure and keeping you alive while under the knife - but you don't want him leaving things behind that will cause you to die AFTER you're under the knife.

    2. Re:Surgeon accountability? by Puff+of+Logic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One of the interesting points of the book was that there is very little scientific study on medical errors and how to best avoid them. Of course there isn't a lot of study, because the ever-more litigious state of modern medicine has created an atmosphere in which a physician/surgeon cannot say "I screwed up, let's learn from this" for fear of being sued into oblivion. While I certainly acknowledge that doctors should be accountable for true malpractice, we hold them to a standard of perfection that would be considered absolutely ridiculous in any other field. Here's a thought: how about no lawyer is allowed to file suit against a physician (on behalf of a patient) unless that lawyer has never screwed up a piece of paperwork. Alternatively, we could create a climate in which lawyers can be sued by their clients for the "pain and suffering" of losing a court case if the lawyer didn't pursue absolutely every available avenue, even the ones with a very poor likelihood of success.

      See how completely unreasonable that would be? I should be clear that I'm not bagging on lawyers here, but using them as an example of how another profession might be held to ridiculous standards of perfection. M&M conferences would be a far more effective learning tool if there was no sense of blame, and doctors could freely help their colleagues learn from prior mistakes.
      --
      P.P.S. I'm doing Science and I'm still alive.
  2. Re:Ya gotta wonder.. by Rakishi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd prefer a doctor operating one me to pay attention to the patient not pause to remember if this was the 16th sponge he took out or if the 16th was the one he took out 10 minutes ago.

  3. Re:Ya gotta wonder.. by timmarhy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    There's 100's of objects involved in some surgeries, some procedures taking many hours with multiple specialists having to come in and out to work on their area of expertise.

    So until you have a medical degree and the years of on the job experience that it takes to even set foot in a surgery, you don't get to call anyone an idiot that does.

    Doing otherwise makes you look like a typical fat,lazy, IGNORANT armchair skeptic who can't even be bothered to use the slightest bit of brain power their pathetic brain is capable of mustering.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  4. Re:Anything. by Edward+Kmett · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have enough trouble getting these things to scan under ideal conditions at the grocery store let alone after being pulled used and bloodied from the body of a patient.

    --
    Sanity is a sandbox. I prefer the swings.
  5. Just another statistic by Smordnys+s'regrepsA · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hell, sometimes they just get the wrong patient/records (take your pick).

    If they get the right paperwork - they can operate on the wrong side. My mother is a nurse (30+ years), and her advice is to make sure you permanent-marker the correct area before they get you ready for your surgery.

    As for leaving stuff in your sewn up body ~ it happened to my grandmother 4 times.

    I guess you have underachievers, alcoholics, and newbies in every profession.

    --
    Just -1, Troll talking to another.
    1. Re:Just another statistic by PieSquared · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Probably a better idea to permanent-marker the *incorrect* area (or both). Because there's a chance they don't even look at the mirror of where they plan to operate.

      --
      Does a line appended to your comment give your post meaning in and of itself, or only in relation to those without?
  6. Re:Ya gotta wonder.. by wizardforce · · Score: 3, Insightful

    they're too busy doing surgery to worry about counting the number of sponges. but really, think of the number of surgeries that are done every year vs how many actually have this sort of thing happen. surgeons could probably go through hundreds of surgeries without anything remaining in a patient that wasn't supposed to be there and there's always that one time... anything that reduces the probability of harm to those going through surgery is a good thing, it's not perfect but it's improving and that's always a good sign,

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
  7. Re:RFID? by Bentov · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I work at a Level 1 trauma center and we do indeed use RFID sponges. Currently we are only using them on a trial basis for trauma surgeries, but I would guess that once the cost drops some, we will infact use them for all surgeries. The RFID wands cost about $50.($135 patient cost). Sponges are bad, but the body will encapsulate them after awhile....retractors on the other hand....I don't know how the hell you leave something 1 foot long and 1.5 inches wide in someone...that boggles the mind. As someone said earlier though, when you have multiple surgeons, multiple residents, multiple scrub techs and circulators, things will get missed. Ofcourse the worst thing is what people call it when something is left in a patient or something goes wrong, a "surgical misadventure" that is just wrong.

  8. Re:Anything. by DigitAl56K · · Score: 2, Insightful

    let alone after being pulled used and bloodied from the body of a patient. .. in the middle of a critical surgery ..

  9. Re:Anything. by chuckymonkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think that an RFID would be great too. Have one on each surgical instrument and after everything is complete and you're ready so sew them back together you run a quick scan over the person's body to check for any RFID. That might be over generalized since I'm not a doctor, but I'm sure that everyone here gets the idea.

    --
    "Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
  10. Re:Ya gotta wonder.. by YetAnotherLogin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you truly think that, then you should probably read this eye-opening article: The Checklist.

  11. Re:Anything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Meh. Previously, they were supposed to keep count of how many they inserted. If they forget to scan one on the way in, same problem. What they ought to do is open packs of 10 at a time. If they don't have 10 or 20 (clean and used) when they're done, then they know they have a problem. They could recycle the unused ones by sending them to some orderlies to repack them into 10s, and verify it by weight. $300 for a good electronic balance, and they have a system that will actually work. Sometimes low-tech is the appropriate solution.

  12. Re:Ya gotta wonder.. by s20451 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So you believe something mission critical should rely on single redundancy, since only stupid people make mistakes?

    I hope you are being sarcastic. If you weren't, and if your job in any way impacts public safety, please resign immediately.

    --
    Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
  13. Re:High Tech Barcode Scanner? by deniable · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How do you scan a bar-code on a sponge designed to soak up blood and yuck? That might be the high-tech part of the scanner.

  14. Re:High Tech Barcode Scanner? by $random_var · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Bar codes aren't high-tech, but applying them to a number of discrete objects in a highly variable environment with a lot of occlusions and weird angles to solve a very relevant medical problem IS novel and definitely worthwhile.

  15. Re:I'm cringing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    He may have an ego, but nothing he has said is wrong.

  16. Re:Ya gotta wonder.. by zmotula · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All the doctor would have to do is to equip his assistant with an abacus. Insert a sponge, move a bead right. Remove a sponge, move a bead left. Multiple rows for tracking multiple items, each row labeled. No barcodes, no lasers, no expensive machines.

  17. Re:Ya gotta wonder.. by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The idea is to reduce the manpower needed to track the sponges. In a messy abdominal surgery, or open heart, you'll go through dozens. Being able to say "it's spong 12345, that was from the pack we opened last" is amazingly helpful to finding the missing sponge, and it's a lot less labor intensive than counting and double checking when the double counting is liable to introduce its own miscounts either way.

  18. Re:Ya gotta wonder.. by s20451 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well then, those specialist surgeons can peel off maybe ten of the thousands of dollars they're making per hour in that operating room to hire a semi-literate guy to watch the operation on closed-circuit TV and count sponges going in and out of the patient.

    Or, I don't know, maybe instead of relying on unskilled labor they could come up with an automated solution to an apparently simple yet safety-critical task? Which is the sort of thing that machines are better at anyway? I mean would you rather trust your sponge count to a machine or to a dude who is doing the job to get booze money? Which is the whole point of the fucking article.

    --
    Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
  19. Poor solution by LagFlag · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In our OR, sponges come in packs of 10. They are counted by the surgical scrub (a graduate of a 12 to 18 month technical program) and an RN (usually a college graduate) together. I have seen cases where there could absolutely be no lost sponge (i.e., small incision on an arm or leg), yet the sponge count is incorrect. This can result from either incorrectly counting the sponge at the beginning of surgery, or someone careless throwing out a sponge with a surgical towel or gown. Although I have seen surgeons go back into patients when a sponge count is incorrect at the end of surgery, more often it is the result of a miscount or throw-away. The bar-code technique mentioned above will only work if all codes are scanned at the beginning of surgery. Unfortunately, I don't see this a practical, as it would take many minutes to scan all sponges and instruments, and at $600/hour per operating room (hospital staff and equipment), it will raise costs too much. RFID tags are an interesting solution, as long as none of the tags stop functioning, and current counting methods are retained.

  20. A 39 cent solution by wealthychef · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have an idea, call me a radical. You take a slip of paper and two bowls. You count the sponges before the operation, and write the number on the paper and put the paper and the clean sponges in bowl 1. You put the used sponges in bowl 2. The operation cannot be completed until the number of sponges in the bowls matches that on the piece of paper. Come on, folks, why do you need a bar code scanner, how does that make this easier? The only advantage of the scanner is that it prevents doctors from lying and saying they counted them -- apparently it's a real possibility, or they would just count them.

    --
    Currently hooked on AMP
    1. Re:A 39 cent solution by raddan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This sounds like an actual legitimate use for RFID tags. It would be a fairly simple matter then to find out if an instrument was left in a patient.

    2. Re:A 39 cent solution by FLEB · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd think part of the problem is a feedback loop-- Doctors can charge more, so both the value of their services, the value of their mistakes (as a consequence of both "refund cost" and "repair cost"), as well as the apparent ability for them to compensate mistake victims go up. Furthermore, the value of human health is a very difficult thing to place a dollar amount on-- While the cost to restore health is often appraisable, the value of the healthy state itself (and the value of lost health) is rarely so. As a result of the real and apparent value of medical repair, and that being the only real metric for compensation, medical malpractice suit returns go up. As a result, doctors need to increase their prices to offset possible problems.

      Then, medical insurance and the rarity of expensive procedures insulates many people from the actual costs of healthcare. That, plus the imperative nature of medical care, and the relative inability to "shop around" to negotiate on terms and costs, means that the consumer's role in cost control is greatly diminished.

      So, as a result, prices can and do ratchet upward as costs increase settlements, and settlements increase costs.

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    3. Re:A 39 cent solution by ben_white · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd think part of the problem is a feedback loop-- Doctors can charge more, so both the value of their services, the value of their mistakes (as a consequence of both "refund cost" and "repair cost"), as well as the apparent ability for them to compensate mistake victims go up. You've been rated insightful, but you are way off the mark.

      The feedback loop doesn't include the doctors. Doctor fees have seen decline nearly every year in the last decade. For example Medicare reduced the average physician reimbursement rate 4.4% beginning Jan 1, 2007, while the cost of running a practice continues to increase every year by nearly twice the rate of inflation (my employees seem to think they deserve cost of living raises); you do the math. Before you post a comment about how most people are insured by plans other than medicare, please realize that all but one of my contracts with private insurers are indexed to medicare, so a 4.4% decrease in medicare is a 4.4% decrease across the board, while my expenses went up nearly 9%. Plus in my state 1 in 5 people are uninsured, and I collect nothing, and can't even deduct the loss!

      Your comments about the average consumers' ability to shop around are true, and this does keep the normal rules of economics from containing medical costs. However, the average hospital bill is 8-10x the physician reimbursement. Hospital costs, the cost of drugs, medical equipment, durable medical equipment, etc. is far more important in determining medical inflation that what docs bill and collect.

      The tort system IS broken, and it has nothing to do with the physician charges. I am not a proponent of doing away with the tort system. Patients harmed by medical negligence deserve redress, but the system we have now does nothing to address that. A no-fault system for all but the most egregious of offenses is what is wanted. The average medical consumer is not helped by large awards in cases of honest mistakes with minimal patient injury. The adversarial system we have now creates few winners (and most of them lawyers). Patients harmed by medical care not meeting the community standard of care deserve compensation, but without the built-in overhead of an adversarial system.
      --
      cheers, ben

      Never miss a good chance to shut up -- Will Rogers
  21. Re:I'm cringing... by Valar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why, because he said that if you aren't a doctor you aren't qualified to discuss whether a particular addition to surgical procedure is meritorious? And that if you aren't a lawyer you should avoid giving out legal advice?

    That's not ego, it's simply the truth. In both cases, you are dealing with incredibly complex fields that contain a lot of specialist information. People spend 4 years _preparing_ to study these, and then another 4 years _studying_ them, and then years of internships, etc, before anyone will trust you to work on/for them unattended. I think because we have access to so much information right at our finger tips, we tend to forget that we aren't the specialists. I've learned enough about medicine to spot common diseases and to use the proper terminology to describe my symptoms. But you know what? If I'm sick and it doesn't go away after a week, I go to see a doctor I trust.

    On a side note, I see this a lot whenever economics or investment comes up on /. This happens to have become my specialty, through a long and winding road. I'll admit that it doesn't require quite as much specialist training, but modern money management is complex stuff. Yet all the time on /. I read people getting the basics wrong, and with great fervor (like a recent conversation regarding stock market yields and the inflation rate where a poster came to the conclusion that nobody but Warren Buffett makes money in the stock market). I get called an idiot when I correct them. It makes me laugh.