Behavioural markers of surgical excellence
Section snippets
Human factors in health care
Systems analyses of adverse events (i.e. deaths, critical incidents and near misses) have been carried out in several health care domains, including anaesthetics (Runciman et al., 1993), obstetrics (Taylor-Adams et al., 1999), emergency medicine (Schaefer et al., 1994, van Vuuren, 2000) and drug delivery (Leape et al., 1995). Although such studies are very important, a singular focus on failure does not allow us to learn about the adaptive strategies which individuals, teams and organisations
Background
In cardiac surgery, outcome studies have traditionally focused on identifying patient and procedural risk factors that lead to increased death rates and long-term complications (Quaegebeur et al., 1986, Kirklin et al., 1992). Little attention has been paid to the role played by human factors on surgical outcomes. A multi-centre UK study was therefore carried out to investigate the role of human factors on surgical outcomes using a neonatal open heart procedure, the neonatal arterial switch
Process excellence
Given the finding that major and minor events are predictors of surgical outcomes, it is valid to use them to develop performance measures. Therefore, the number of major and minor events per case, and whether or not they are compensated for, was taken as a measure of ‘process excellence’. This is the degree to which the intra-operative process was error free, as reflected in the number of events per case and whether or not they were compensated for. It is hypothesised that there would be
Major and minor events per surgeon
Fig. 1 shows the frequency of major compensated versus uncompensated events per surgeon. The surgeons can be categorised into three groups:
- 1.
Surgeons who had no major uncompensated events (surgeons 3, 5, and 14).
- 2.
Surgeons who had a greater proportion of compensated versus uncompensated major events (surgeons 4, 8, 12, 13, 16).
- 3.
Surgeons who had more uncompensated major events than compensated major events (surgeons 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 15).
Fig. 2 shows the frequency of compensated versus
Discussion
The results show that the surgeons with the highest (3, 5, 8, 14) and lowest (6, 9, 13 and 15) procedural excellence scores were consistent across both indices. Surgeons 3, 5, 8 and 14 achieved ‘process excellence’ whereby there were fewer errors and more compensation than expected after adjustment for known patient risk factors.
The differences in procedural excellence scores across surgeons and their teams may be explained with reference to the behavioural markers shown in Table 1. A complex
Conclusion
In addition to learning lessons from adverse medical events we must also try to understand success, and in particular to identify the individual, team and organisational markers that underpin excellence. Our analysis shows that the behavioural markers approach may be an appropriate method via which to evaluate surgeons and their teams. Further research is needed to validate the behavioural markers used in this study and to test their applicability to other medical domains.
Acknowledgements
Research at the Institute of Child Health and Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust benefits from Research and Development funding received from the NHS Executive. This research was supported by a research grant (PG94166) from the British Heart Foundation.
References (33)
Leadership qualities in prominent neurosurgeons
Act Neurochir. Supplement (Wien)
(1997)- Carthey, J., de Leval, M.R., Reason, J.T., 2000. Understanding excellence in complex, dynamic medical domains. In:...
- Connelly, E.P., 1997. A Resource Package for CRM Developers: Behavioural Markers of CRM Skill From Real World Case...
- et al.
Gaps in the continuity of care and progress on patient safety
British Medical Journal
(2000) - et al.
Human factors and cardiac surgery: a multi-center study
Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
(2000) - et al.
Fixation errors: failure to revise situation assessment in dynamic and risky systems
- Dominguez, C.O., 1998. Expertise in laparoscopic surgery: anticipation and affordances. In: Proceedings of the Fourth...
What puts the surg in surgery?
Australia and New Zealand Journal of Surgery
(1974)Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems
Human Factors
(1995)Hindsight does not equal foresight: the effect of outcome knowledge on judgement under uncertainty
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
(1975)
Safety management assessment systems (SMAS): a process for identifying and evaluating human and organisation factors in marine system operations with field test results
Reliability Engineering and System Safety
Culture at Work in Aviation and Medicine: National, Cultural and Professional Influences
On error management: lessons from aviation
British Medical Journal
Clinical outcomes after the arterial switch operation for transposition: patient, support, procedural and institutional risk factors
Circulation
Working in practice but not in theory: theoretical challenges of high reliability organisations
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
Cited by (141)
The Trainee's Role in Patient Safety: Training Residents and Medical Students in Surgical Patient Safety
2021, Surgical Clinics of North AmericaCitation Excerpt :Another approach is generally trying to allow residents an appropriate amount of notice by assigning cases, say, at the beginning of each week. Although studies often look at mistakes leading to compromised patient safety, a singular focus on failure may not always be best for learning about the strategies needed to train residents to succeed; we must learn from successes as well.23 As each residency program is unique in structure, this should involve broader dissemination of systems-based processes that work.
Do not break up the surgical team! Familiarity and expertise affect operative time in complex surgery
2018, American Journal of SurgeryTeams, Competence, and Safety in Surgery
2018, Quality and Safety in NeurosurgeryIn Situ Operating Room–Based Simulation: A Review
2017, Journal of Surgical Education