Análise da integridade de dados para construção de kpi´s na produção: estudo de caso em uma empresa de mineração / Analysis of integrity of data for construction kpi´s in production: a case study in a mining company

O presente estudo propôs uma análise de dados de produção de uma grande empresa de mineração do Brasil, o objetivo é demonstrar por meio de ferramentas estatísticas que os dados inseridos manualmente em sistemas de produção alteram significativamente resultados de KPI’s da organização, e consequentemente, afetam decisões estratégicas tomadas com base nesses indicadores. Para tanto, efetuou-se um estudo estatístico, a fim de analisar duas amostras de dados que contém KPI’s calculados para equipamentos móveis. Uma das amostras com informações inseridas manualmente pelo operador e outra com dados de um computador de bordo, recentemente instalado nos equipamentos móveis da mina. Pelas análises exploratórias e pelo teste de hipótese para diferença entre duas médias populacionais para dados pareados (Pared T), feito com o software Minitab, notaram-se diferenças estatisticamente significativas entre as amostras. O resultado, portanto, comprovou de maneira satisfatória a pergunta e a hipótese de pesquisa feita pelos autores no presente estudo, em que a inserção de dados de forma manual têm integridade questionável, pela quantidade de erros em que está sujeito o processo de obtenção e armazenamento dos dados. Desta forma, o estudo pretende salientar a importância da gestão de informação dentro de companhias e a relevância da integridade de dados críticos para cálculos de indicadores-chaves das empresas. 

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries