Evaluating and Selecting Video Equipment for the OR - operating room

AORN Journal, Dec, 1999 by Jean Workman, Cheryl Vrabel

Table 2 VIDEO EVALUATION

Date--
Video equipment company--
Physician--
Procedure--
Please use the following rating system plus additional
comments:
   1. Excellent
   2. Above average
   3. Adequate
   4. Not adequate

Completed by physician

Picture quality          1     2     3     4
Light source quality     1     2     3     4
Ease of operation        1     2     3     4
Ease of focus            1     2     3     4
Insufflator              1     2     3     4
Overall impression       1     2     3     4
Additional comments:

Completed by OR staff members
Is this system user friendly?
                         1     2     3     4

Staff member comments:

Ultimately, we compiled and summarized the results of the physician forms as excellent, above average, or adequate for each company (Table 3). The final summary also included any additional comments made on the original evaluation forms.

Table 3 Company B (16 evaluations)

                     Excellent   Above average    Adequate

Picture quality          16
Light source             16
Ease of operation        15            1
Ease of focus            16
Insufflator               8
Company B comments

"Added advantage of zoom and two-button camera."

"Excellent"

"Best picture I've seen to date."

"Picture was clear and large, would be helpful doing anterior cruciate ligament procedures."

"Easiest system to operate, excellent picture, control white balance from camera."

"Imaging is fine."

"Fantastic picture."

"Please buy this."

"The best system I've used."

"Need surgical control of videocassette recorder and photo instead of white balance."

"Best system I've seen."

COMPARISON

We created a chart to help compare each company's system and the individual components (Table 4). Analyzing the features of each component side by side made the differences apparent.

Table 4 VIDEO COMPARISON