The aim of this article is to show how an eye clinic of a Turkish public hospital initiated Six Sigma principles to reduce the number of complications encountered during and after trabeculectomy surgeries. Data were collected for ten years. To analyse the process, main tools of Six Sigma’s Define-Measure-Analyze-Improve-Control (DMAIC) improvement cycle such as SIPOC Table, Failure, Mode and Effect Analysis were implemented. Sources and root causes of ten types of complications were identified and reported. Patient’s eye anatomy, experience of ophthalmic surgeon, quality of surgical equipment, quality and type of suture, and experience of staff were identified to be Critical-to-Quality (CTQ) factors for a successful surgery. The most frequently occurring complication was found to be hypotony. The process sigma level of the process was measured to be 3.1391. The surgical team concluded that ten complications (out of twelve) should be significantly reduced by taking the necessary preventative measures.
Six Sigma Ophthalmology Trabeculectomy Complications1. Introduction
Glaucoma is one of the leading causes of irreversible blindness throughout the world. World Health Organiza- tion (WHO) has stated that glaucoma accounts for blindness in 5.1 million people or 13.5% of the global blind- ness, i.e. behind cataracts and trachoma at 15.8 million and 5.9 million persons, or 41.8% and 15.5% of global blindness, respectively [1] . Glaucoma has become the second most common cause of bilateral blindness world- wide. In the US, it is the second leading cause of blindness and the most frequent cause of blindness (5.6%) among African-Americans, according to the US Department of Commerce’s Bureau of the Census 1990 pro- vided by the National Society to prevent blindness in 1993 [1] . Even though it is known to be more commonly afflicting older adults, it may occur in all segments of society with significant health and economic consequences, making it a major health problem [2] .
Trabeculectomy, the most commonly performed glaucoma filtering procedure, is performed when medical treatment or laser therapy or both fails to reduce IOP from a level that has been associated with progressive vis- ual filed loss or optic nerve damage. It is indicated when target intraocular pressure (IOP) is not achieved or when the neural tissue or visual function is progressively lost despite maximally tolerated medical or laser ther- apies. The filtering surgery is performed at the surgical limbus where the peripheral cornea meets the sclera ex- ternally. Ineffectiveness, intolerance, and poor compliance with medical therapy yield the decision for surgical intervention [3] .
Trabeculectomy is performed as an ambulatory procedure unless general medical care requires medical ad- mission [4] . The purpose of the treatment is to maintain visual function and prevent further loss. Although many factors may contribute to glaucomatous optic neuropathy, reduction of IOP remains the primary therapeutic goal. Medical treatment and laser or incisional surgery to lower IOP prevents additional visual field loss in most pa- tients with primary open-angle glaucoma [5] [6] .
Although glaucoma filtering surgery risks are usually limited to those of local anesthetics and ocular compli- cations, knowledge of general medical conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, cardiac status, and anticoagu- lant use, is important [4] .
Intraoperative complications may be related to anesthesia, corneal traction suture, conjunctiva and scleral flap [4] . Many postoperative complications such as hypotony and shallow anterior chamber also occur as a direct re- sult of poor surgical technique involving scleral flap dissection, inner block removal or conjunctival closure [4] . However, complications are not limited to the immediate postoperative period. Longterm changes in the bleb may predispose to leaks, blebitis and endophtalmitis [7] - [11] . To minimize complications and enhance surgical success, attention should be paid to each step of the procedure. Therefore, complications must be detected early in order to initiate adequate preventative and therapeutic measures.
Once the blindness of glaucoma has occurred, there is no known treatment that will restore the lost vision. In nearly all cases, however, blindness from glaucoma is preventable [12] . This prevention requires early detection and proper treatment. Detection depends on the ability to recognize the early clinical manifestations of the vari- ous glaucoma types [12] . Approporiate treatment requires an understanding of the pathogenic mechanisms in- volved, as well as a detailed knowledge of the drugs and operations that are used to control the IOP [12] . Thus, postoperative trabeculectomy care is as important as the procedure itself in determining the outcome. Anterior chamber depth, IOP level and bleb characteristics are important determinants of aqueous humor outflow through the fistula. Modulation of the postoperative inflammation and wound healing process may also affect the success [13] .
The use of Six Sigma, as a quality improvement method, can be employed in order to eliminate complications encountered during and after ophthalmic surgeries [14] . Originally initiated by Motorola, Honeywell and Gener- al Electric [15] , Six Sigma is a powerful performance improvement tool that is changing the face of modern healthcare delivery [16] . Although it was initially introduced in manufacturing processes, it is being imple- mented in diagnostic imaging processes [17] - [19] , emergency room [20] , paramedic backup [21] , laboratory [22] , cataract surgery [14] , radiology [23] , surgical site infections [24] , Intra Lase surgery [25] , LASIK surgery [26] , strabismus surgery [27] , intravitreal injections [28] , cataract surgery in patients with pseudoexfoliation syndrome [29] , pars plana vitrectomy [30] phacoemulsification cataract surgery [31] , and stent placement [32] as a cost-effective way to improve quality, performance and productivity.
A Six Sigma process produces 3.4 defective parts per million opportunities (DPMO) [33] . Being a method that eliminates errors, Six Sigma makes use of a structured methodology called DMAIC to find the main causes behind problems and to reach near perfect processes [34] . DMAIC is useful to analyse and modify complicated time-sensitive healthcare processes involving multiple specialists and treatment areas by identifying and remov- ing root causes of errors or complications and thus minimizing healthcare process variability [16] [33] .
In this study, a Six Sigma infrastructure was developed for a public eye care centre in order to reduce the number of complications and thus, improve the outcomes of their trabeculectomy surgeries. In addition, sigma level of each type of complication are calculated and reported.
2. Method: Application of Six Sigma’s DMAIC for Trabeculectomy Surgery
When the eye care centre decided that Six Sigma was the best way to achieve their goals, a surgical team was assembled and trained in the methodology. Committed and consistent leadership to overcome the complications was assured by this team. They firstly generated a SIPOC (Supplier, Input, Process, Output and Customer) Table for the process (Table 1). To achieve the performance objective, the surgical team first determined by brains- torming the CTQ factors, i.e. the factors that may have an influence on the objective.
The surgical team determined the metrics to measure existing process. The metrics to be chosen for a Six Sigma study were:
1) Total number of surgeries performed in the eye care centre,
2) Number of complications.
Data were collected for a period of ten years. In this period, surgeries were performed on 253 eyes. Complica- tions experienced (Table 2) had been noted as they occurred. The surgical team identified ten types of complica- tions and classified them as when (i.e. intraoperatively and/or postoperatively), and how soon they occur, i.e. acute, sub-acute and/or chronic (Table 4). Then, sources (Table 3) and root-causes (Table 4) of these complica- tions are tabulated by type.
SIPOC table for trabeculectomy surgery
Supplier
Input
Process
Output
Customer
Ophthalmic surgeon
Patient
General and preoperative evaluation
IOP under control
Patient
Assistant surgeon
Microscope
Preoperative regulation of sistemic body health
Long-term survival of the optic nerve
Nurse
Surgical equipment
Preparation of conjunctival and scleral flap
Preservation of visual acuity
Anaesthesia doctor
Light
Trabeculectomy
Preservation of visual field
Suture material
Suturation of scleral flap and conjunctiva
Discharge
Complications experienced
Complication
Intra-Operative
Post-Operative
Acute
Sub-Acute
Chronic
Type I
Conjunctival incontinence and perforation (defect)
X
X
Type II
Expulsive haemorrhage
X
X
Type III
Hypotony
X
X
X
Type IV
Shallow anterior chamber
X
X
X
Type V
Hyphema
X
X
Type VI
Fibrin reaction
X
X
X
Type VII
Choroidal detachment
X
X
X
Type VIII
Chronic hypotony and maculopathy
X
X
X
Type IX
Positive seidel test
X
X
Type X
Early cataract formation
X
X
X
Type XI
Malignant glaucoma
X
X
X
X
Type XII
Retinal detachment
X
X
X
X
Sources of complications
Surgeon
Staff
Patient
Equipment
Suture Material
Type I
X
X
X
Type II
X
Type III
X
X
X
X
Type IV
X
X
X
X
Type V
X
X
X
Type VI
X
X
X
X
Type VII
X
X
X
Type VIII
X
X
X
X
Type IX
X
X
X
Type X
X
Type XI
X
Type XII
X
X
Root-causes of complications
Experience of Surgeon
Experience of Staff
Patient’s Eye Anotomy
Quality of Surgical Equipment
Quality and Type of Suture
Type I
X
X
X
Type II
X
Type III
X
X
X
X
Type IV
X
X
X
X
Type V
X
X
X
Type VI
X
X
X
X
Type VII
X
X
X
Type VIII
X
X
X
X
Type IX
X
X
X
Type X
X
Type XI
X
Type XII
X
X
3. Analysis
The surgical team analysed the occurrence frequency of each complication and related them with the root-causes. (Table 4 and Table 5). The analysis revealed that hyptony (Type III), shallow anterior chamber (Type IV) and hyphema (Type V) were the three most frequently occurring complications in the trabeculectomy surgeries (Ta- ble 5). Then, they classified the CTQs as “vital few factors” and “trivial many factors” according to how fre- quent they caused the complications. The “vital few” factors, i.e. the factors that had the most impact on the success of surgery were determined to be the patient’s eye anatomy and ophthalmic surgeon’s experience. The other factors, i.e. quality of the surgical equipment, quality and type of suture, and experience of staff were the “trivial many”.
Frequencies, DPMOs and sigma levels
Count
Frequency (%)
DPMO
Sigma Level
Type I
5
1.97
19,763
3.56
Type II
1
0.39
3953
4.16
Type III
113
44.66
446,640
1.63
Type IV
75
29.64
296,443
2.03
Type V
49
19.36
193,676
2.36
Type VI
32
12.64
126,482
2.64
Type VII
27
10.67
106,719
2.74
Type VIII
8
3.16
31,621
3.36
Type IX
8
3.16
31,621
3.36
Type X
3
1.18
11,858
3.76
Type XI
2
0.79
7905
3.91
Type XII
1
0.39
3953
4.16
To measure the current sigma level of a complication, surgical team calculated the current DPMO and sigma levels for each complication type (Table 5). For this, two distinct datasets are required: total number of trabecu- lectomy surgeries performed (A) and total number of complications occurred (B). Then, the DPMO can be cal- culated from Equation (1) as follows:
Normal distribution underlies Six Sigma’s statistical assumptions [14] . An empirically-based 1.5 sigma shift is introduced into the calculation. A higher sigma level indicates a lower rate of complications and a more efficient process [14] .
The highest sigma level was obtained for expulsive haemorrhage (Type II) and retinal detachment (Type XII). The lowest sigma level was found to belong to hypotony (Type III). Having sigma levels lower than 4.00; all types of complications except haemorrhage (Type II) and retinal detachment (Type XII) needed to be signifi- cantly reduced.
The process sigma level, calculated from the arithmetic average of sigma levels of twelve complications, was found to be 3.1391.
4. Discussion
Risk assessment of the surgery was achieved by the Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA). Utilization of the FMEA involved break down the process into individual steps: potential failure modes (i.e. complications), severity score, probability score, hazard score, criticality and detection, so that the surgery team could look at key drivers in the process based on the past experience.
Occurrence trends and consequences of complications over a 10-year period had been monitored and recorded. Surgical team prioritized the complications according to how serious their consequences were (i.e. severity score); how frequently they occurred (i.e. probability score) and how easily they could be detected. Hazard analysis was employed in order to identify failure modes and their causes and effects. The surgery team deter- mined the severity of each complication and assigned scores for them. The severity of each complication was scored from 1 to 4 (Table 6).
For each complication type, the hazard score was calculated by multiplying the severity score with the proba- bility score. Consequently, an FMEA table was drawn (Table 7). Among the complications, hypotony (Type III) yielded the highest hazard score. Haemorrhage (Type II) and retinal detachment (Type XII) were almost equally hazardous complications. According to FMEA, both were the least hazardous complications.
Severity scores
Severity Score
4
3
2
1
Severity of Complication
Permanent harm
Temporary harm
Bias
No harm
FMEA table
Complication Type
Hazard Analysis
Decision Tree Analysis
Severity Score
Probability Score
Hazard Score
Critical?
Detectable?
Type I
2
0.0197
0.0394
No
Yes
Type II
4
0.0039
0.0156
Yes
No
Type III
3
0.4466
1.3398
No
Yes
Type IV
3
0.2964
0.8892
No
Yes
Type V
2
0.1936
0.3872
No
Yes
Type VI
2
0.1264
0.2528
No
Yes
Type VII
3
0.1067
0.3201
Yes
No
Type VIII
4
0.0316
0.1264
Yes
No
Type IX
3
0.0316
0.0948
No
Yes
Type X
3
0.0118
0.0354
Yes
Yes
Type XI
4
0.0079
0.0316
Yes
No
Type XII
4
0.0039
0.0156
Yes
No
Corrective Action Plan
The surgical team developed preventive measures for each type of complication in order to bring the overall surgery process under control (See the Appendix). By brainstorming on the mechanisms underlying the compli- cations, they implemented the following corrective action plan to reduce and/or eliminate other complications.
5. Conclusions
In this study, authors found that twelve types of complications were encountered in the eye care centre while performing trabeculectomy surgeries. The analysis showed that these complications had occurred either intra- operatively or postoperatively. Postoperative complications were almost always related to the events that had occurred during the surgery. The process sigma level of the overall process (i.e. trabeculectomy surgeries per- formed in 10-years) was measured to be 3.1391.
It was found that patient’s eye anatomy and surgeon’s experience were the vital few CTQ factors that had the most impact on the success of surgeries. Many complications were related to the learning curve associated with the technique used in the procedure. These complication rates were reduced as surgeons gained experience and were trained on how to identify, minimize or eliminate the sources and root-causes of the complications. These lections of quality and type of suture are also essential. Staff should be trained to gain more experience on the surgery.
To conclude, the risks associated with trabeculectomy can be minimized by taking the necessary preventative measures with appropriate preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative care.
Cite this paper
CanÖztürker,İbrahimŞahbaz,Zeynep KaraarasıÖztürker,Mehmet TolgaTaner,ŞükrüBayraktar,GamzeKağan, (2014) Development of a Six Sigma Infrastructure for Trabeculectomy Process. American Journal of Operations Research,04,246-254. doi: 10.4236/ajor.2014.44024
AppendixNOTESReferencesHairston, R.J., Maguire, A.M., Vitale, S. and Green, W.R. (1996) Morphometric Analysis of Pars Plana Development in Humans. Retina (Philadelphia, Pa.), 17, 135-138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00006982-199703000-00009Leske M.C. ,et al. (1983)The Epidemiology of Open-Angle Glaucoma: A Review American Journal of Epidemiology 118, 166-191.Katz, L.J., Costa, V.P. and Spaeth, G.L. (1996) Filtration Surgery, Chapter 83, Glaucoma Surgery, Part 7, Glaucoma Therapy, Volume 3, The Glaucomas. In: Ritch, R., Shields, M.B. and Krupin, T., Eds., 2nd Edition, Mosby-Yearbook Inc., St. Louis, 1661-1702.Lerner, S.F. and Parrish II, R.K. (2003) Glaucoma Surgery. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, USA.Sherwood, M.B., Migdal, C.S. and Hitchings, R.A. (1993) Initial Treatment of Glaucoma: Surgery or Medications: I. Initial Treatment of Glaucoma: Filtration Surgery. Survey of Ophthalmology, 37, 293-299.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0039-6257(93)90013-WLichter, P.R., Musch, D.C., Gillespie, B.W., Guire, K.E., Janz, N.K., Wren, P.A. and Mills, M.P.H. (2001) Interim Clinical Outcomes in the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study Comparing Initial Treatment Randomized to Medications or Surgery. Ophthalmology, 108, 1943-1953. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0161-6420(01)00873-9Jampel, H.D., Quigley, H.A., Kerrigan-Baumrind, L.A., Melia, B.M., Friedman, D. and Barron, Y. (2001) Risk Factors for Late-Onset Infection Following Glaucoma Filtration Surgery. Archives of Ophthalmology, 119, 1001-1008.http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archopht.119.7.1001Chen, P.P., Gedde, S.J., Budenz, D.L. and Parrish, R.K. (1997) Outpatient Treatment of Bleb Infection. Archives of Ophthalmology, 115, 1124-1128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1997.01100160294005Ciulla, T.A., Beck, A.D., Topping, T.M. and Baker, A.S. (1997) Blebitis, Early Endophthalmitis, and Late Endophthalmitis after Glaucoma-Filtering Surgery. Ophthalmology, 104, 986-995.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0161-6420(97)30196-1DeBry, P.W., Perkins, T.W., Heatley, G., Kaufman, P. and Brumback, L.C. (2002) Incidence of Late-Onset BlebRelated Complications Following Trabeculectomy with Mitomycin. Archives of Ophthalmology, 120, 297-300.http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archopht.120.3.297Kangas, T.A., Greenfield, D.S., Flynn Jr., H.W., Parrish II, R.K. and Palmberg, P. (1997) Delayed-Onset Endophthalmitis Associated with Conjunctival Filtering Blebs. Ophthalmology, 104, 746-752.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0161-6420(97)30238-3Allingham, R.R., Damji, K.F., Freedman, S., Moroi, S.E. and Shafranov, G. (2005) Shields’ Textbook of Glaucoma. 5th Edition, Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, USA.Roth, S.M., Spaeth, G.L., Starita, R.J., Birbillis, E.M. and Steinmann, W.C. (1991) The Effects of Postoperative Corticosteroids on Trabeculectomy and the Clinical Course of Glaucoma: Five-Year Follow-Up Study. Ophthalmic Surgery, 22, 724-729.Taner, M.T. (2013) Application of Six Sigma Methodology to a Cataract Surgery Unit. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 26, 768-785. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJHCQA-02-2012-0022Mehrjerdi, Y.Z. (2011) Six Sigma: Methodology, Tools and Its Future. International Journal of Assembly Automation, 31, 79-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01445151111104209Taner, M.T., Sezen, B. and Antony, J. (2007) An Overview of Six Sigma Applications in Healthcare Industry. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 20, 329-340. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09526860710754398Antony, J. and Banuelas, R. (2002) Key Ingredients for the Effective Implementation of Six Sigma Program. Measuring Business Excellence, 6, 20-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13683040210451679Antony, J., Antony, F.J., Kumar, M. and Cho, B.R. (2007) Six Sigma in Service Organisations: Benefits, Challenges and Difficulties, Common Myths, Empirical Observations and Success Factors. In-ternational Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 24, 294-311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656710710730889Taner, M.T., Sezen, B. and Atwat, K.M. (2012) Application of Six Sigma Methodology to a Diagnostic Imaging Process. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 25, 274-290.http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09526861211221482Miller, M.J., Ferrin, D.M. and Szymanski, J.M. (2003) Simulating Six Sigma Improvement Ideas for a Hospital Emergency Department. Proceedings of the IEEE Winter Simulation Conference, New Orleans, 7-10 December 2003, 1926-1929.Taner, M.T. and Sezen, B. (2009) An Application of Six Sigma Methodology to Turnover Intentions in Healthcare. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 22, 252-265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09526860910953520Nevalainen, D., Berte, L., Kraft, C., Leigh, E., Picaso, L. and Morgan, T. (2000) Evaluating Laboratory Performance on Quality Indicators with the Six Sigma Scale. Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, 124, 516-519.Cherry, J. and Seshadri, S. (2000) Six Sigma: Using Statistics to Reduce Process Variability and Costs in Radiology. Radiology Management, 22, 42-49.Pexton, C. and Young, D. (2004) Reducing Surgical Site Infections through Six Sigma and Change Management. Patient Safety and Quality Healthcare, 1, 1-8.Sahbaz, I., Taner, M.T., Eliacik, M., Kagan, G. and Erbas, E. (2014) Adoption of Six Sigma’s DMAIC to Reduce Complications in IntraLase Surgeries. International Journal of Statistics in Medical Research, 3, 126-133.http://dx.doi.org/10.6000/1929-6029.2014.03.02.6Taner, M.T., Kagan, G., Sahbaz, I., Erbas, E. and Kagan, S.B. (2014) A Preliminary Study for Six Sigma Implementation in Laser in Situ Keratomileusis (LASIK) Surgeries. International Review of Management and Marketing, 4, 24-33.Taner, M.T., Sahbaz, I., Kagan, G., Atwat, K. and Erbas, E. (2014) Development of Six Sigma Infrastructure for Strabismus Surgeries. International Review of Management and Marketing, 4, 49-58.Sahbaz, I., Taner, M.T., Eliacik, M., Kagan, G., Erbas, E. and Enginyurt, H. (2014) Deployment of Six Sigma Methodology to Reduce Complications in Intravitreal Injections. International Review of Management and Marketing, 4, 160-166.Sahbaz, I., Taner, M.T., Kagan, G., Sanisoglu, H., Durmus, E., Tunca, M., Erbas, E., Kagan, S.B., Kagan, M.K. and Enginyurt, H. (2014) Development of a Six Sigma Infrastructure for Cataract Surgery in Patients with Pseudoexfoliation Syndrome. Archives of Business Research, 2, 15-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/abr.22.173Sahbaz, I., Taner, M.T., Sanisoglu, H., Kar, T., Kagan, G., Durmus, E., Tunca, M., Erbas, E., Armagan, I. and Kagan, M.K. (2014) Deployment of Six Sigma Methodology to Pars Plana Vitrectomy. International Journal of Statistics in Medical Research, 3, 94-102. http://dx.doi.org/10.6000/1929-6029.2014.03.02.3Sahbaz, I., Taner, M.T., Kagan, G., Sanisoglu, H., Erbas, E., Durmus, E., Tunca, M. and Enginyurt, H. (2014) Deployment of Six Sigma Methodology in Phacoemulsification Cataract Surgeries. International Review of Management and Marketing, 4, 123-131.Taner, M.T., Kagan, G., Celik, S., Erbas, E. and Kagan, M.K. (2013) Formation of Six Sigma Infrastructure for the Coronary Stenting Process. International Review of Management and Marketing, 3, 232-242.Buck, C. (2001) Application of Six Sigma to Reduce Medical Errors. Annual Quality Congress Proceedings, Charlotte, 11-15 April 2001, 739-742.Park, S.H. and Antony, J. (2008) Robust Design for Quality Engineering and Six Sigma. World Scientific Publishing, New Jersey. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/6655