• K Hoeper, M Kriependorf, C Felix, P Nyhuis, and A Tecklenburg.
• Institut für Standardisiertes und angewandtes Krankenhausmanagement (ISAK), Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, 30625, Hannover, Deutschland. Hoeper.Kirsten@mh-hannover.de.
• Anaesthesist. 2017 Dec 1; 66 (12): 953-960.

BackgroundThe primary goal of a surgical team is the successful performance of an operation on a patien; however, this primary goal can show discrepancies from the goals of individual team members. The main causes for differences of interests can be variations in subjective preferences and organizational differences. Subjective preferences are due to the values held by those involved. These values are of an intrinsic nature and therefore difficult to change. Another reason for individual goals is that hospitals and universities are professional bureaucracies. Experts working in professional bureaucracies are known to identify themselves to a greater extent with their respective profession than with their institution; however, teams in the operating room (OR) have to work together in multidisciplinary teams. The main goal of this analysis is to document role-specific targets and motivations within teams.MethodsThis was a case study at a university hospital with 40 operating rooms. The data collection resulted from the three pillars of the goal documentation instrument, which includes expert interviews, a utility analysis and card placement as a basis for communicative validation. The results were analyzed with a systematic method as a qualitative content analysis. The four-pillar success model, which maps aspects of a successful hospital, was used as a deductive coding scheme. The four pillars represent the level of medical quality (process, structure and outcome quality), economy and efficiency, client satisfaction (patients and referring physicians) and employee satisfaction. At a university hospital an additional focus is on research and teaching. In addition to the four pillar success model as a deductive coding scheme, an inductive coding scheme was introduced. Approximately 10% of the employees from each professional group (surgeons, anesthesiologists, OR nurses, nurse anesthetists) were interviewed resulting in 65 interviews overall. The interviews were conducted within a time span of 4 months.ResultsConsidering the main categories quality of medical care, economy and efficiency, patient satisfaction and employee satisfaction as well as research and teaching, surgeons thought the categories of economy and efficiency (37%) and quality of medical care (34%) to be the most important. For anesthesiologists, however, the category of employee satisfaction (38%) was most important, followed by the category of economy and efficiency (31%). For the OR nurses as well as for the nurse anesthetists the category of employee satisfaction was of highest priority (61% and 57%, respectively).ConclusionThe results show that considering the main categories no dimension is equally important for the participating professional groups. This can result in goal conflicts. Additionally, the ad hoc teams make it impossible for team building to occur, making it difficult for the professional groups to adapt to each other and the individual goals. This presents a high potential for conflict. The difference in the perception of the importance of employee satisfaction is a crucial factor for emerging conflicts in the OR, as employee satisfaction correlates with productivity and patient satisfaction. Knowing and communicating the different goals is a first step for optimizing the OR management system.

25 keywords...

hide…