pelling reasons for facilities to bolster their prevention efforts with
adjunct technology like radiofrequency (RF) or barcode scanning tech-
nology.
The combined high-touch/high-tech approach to preventing retained
objects is now lauded by professional associations like AORN. In fact,
AORN specifically recommends that facilities now consider using
technology to assist with their manual sponge-counting process. Plus,
there's a growing body of evidence showing that technology not only
reduces the likelihood of a retained object, it's also less costly in the
long run than relying solely on a manual count process.
Dr. Steelman was the lead author of one such study, which looked at
319 retained surgical sponges (RSS) over a 5-year-period, the largest
sample of RSS events in published literature (osmag.net/kM2qFS).
The study — "Retained surgical sponges: a descriptive study of 319
occurrences and contributing factors from 2012 to 2017"— concluded
that facilities consider "the addition of sponge-detection technology to
verify that no sponge remains in the patient prior to discharge from
the operating or procedure room."
The technology used to prop up manual processes can be broken
down into 2 categories:
• Counting systems. Sponges feature bar codes that are manually
scanned with and recorded by a computerized device as they're
placed in the sterile field. The sponges are scanned again when
they're removed from the field. With this method, the closing count
can be confirmed by an automated tally of how many sponges have
been used.
• Detection systems. Unlike bar-code scanning and counting sys-
tems, which can only verify the count and alert surgical staff that a
sponge is unaccounted for, a sponge detection system can actually
locate the missing sponge for you. These systems feature sponges
3 6 • O U T PA T I E N T S U R G E R Y M A G A Z I N E • O C T O B E R 2 0 1 9
