Hallbeck, M Susar

Background Surgeons face elevated risks of musculoskeletal disorders due to prolonged operating times, awkward postures, and repetitive tasks, which can impair performance and well-being. Microbreaks have emerged as a potential ergonomic intervention to reduce discomfort and fatigue during surgery. Objective The main goal of this study was to investigate and compare the intraoperative usability and effectiveness of two break scheduling strategies using the OR-Stretch TM Web-App. Furthermore, surgeons’ feedback on the primary barriers to implementation of the OR-Stretch Web-App was recorded. Methods This study used a randomized, within-subjects crossover design. Fourteen surgeons (eight females) performed three surgical procedures with the following microbreak schedules; (1) microbreaks every 30 min with an optional ten-minute snooze (Break-30), (2) microbreaks every 60 min with an optional ten-minute snooze (Break-60), or (3) no microbreaks (Baseline). Outcomes were measured using self-reported subjective surveys (e.g., discomfort, fatigue, workload, and usability). Results Surgeons found both Break-30 and Break-60 conditions aided physical performance, mental focus, body pain/discomfort, and level of fatigue (self-reported improvement between 28.6% and 78.6%). No significant differences were observed in surgeons’ subjective evaluations of the Break-30 and Break-60 conditions; however, the data suggest that Break-60 is preferable to the Break-30 condition. Conclusions This study provides evidence supporting the OR-Stretch Web-App as a potential surgical ergonomic intervention. However, enhancing the Web-App's user-friendliness and developing strategies to synchronize microbreaks with appropriate times during surgeries, to avoid disrupting the surgical workflow, are critical areas for future studies.

Abstract Background Poor operating room (OR) ergonomics poses risk of injury to OR staff, worsening patient outcomes and threatening workforce wellness and sustainability. How OR staff navigate ergonomic barriers in the interdisciplinary team environment was examined in this qualitative study. Methods Semi-structured, open-ended interviews of surgeons, anaesthesiologists, and OR nurses were conducted at a single institution using a sociomaterial approach with interview-to-the-double. Transcripts were coded by two independent researchers. Themes in the data were outlined using the System Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) 2.0 framework. Results Five major themes were identified. First, physical environment issues creating cognitive and physical frictions, such as tripping hazards and poor room layouts. Second, influence of social positionality, with hierarchy by role and experience and social dynamics leading to a differential capacity to adjust. Third, team collaboration, with lack of interdisciplinary work and communication and high staff turnover. Fourth, burden of self-initiated workarounds, outlining conflicts between system/organizational issues and individual solutions. Fifth, institutional support, with lack of leadership engagement. Participants suggested solutions including accommodations to foster a collaborative approach to managing discomfort in the OR and new team communication tools. Conclusion Ergonomic barriers were described within the work system of the SEIPS 2.0 framework. Social positionality and differential levels of agency, as well as lack of team collaboration and misperceptions of others’ roles, were central to ergonomic challenges. Conflicts between problems lying with the system/organization and solutions being left to individuals were also central to challenges to optimal OR ergonomics.