RESUMEN
This study focuses on understanding the influence of cognitive biases in the intra-operative decision-making process within cardiac surgery teams, recognizing the complexity and high-stakes nature of such environments. We aimed to investigate the perceived prevalence and impact of cognitive biases among cardiac surgery teams, and how these biases may affect intraoperative decisions and patient safety and outcomes. A mixed-methods approach was utilized, combining quantitative ratings across 32 different cognitive biases (0 to 100 visual analogue scale), regarding their "likelihood of occurring" and "potential for patient harm" during the intraoperative phase of cardiac surgery. Based on these ratings, we collected qualitative insights on the most-rated cognitive biases from semi-structured interviews with surgeons, anaesthesiologists, and perfusionists who work in a cardiac operating room. A total of 16 participants, including cardiac surgery researchers and clinicians, took part in the study. We found a significant presence of cognitive biases, particularly confirmation bias and overconfidence, which influenced decision-making processes and had the potential for patient harm. Of 32 cognitive biases, 6 were rated above the 75th percentile for both criteria (potential for patient harm, likelihood of occurring). Our preliminary findings provide a first step toward a deeper understanding of the complex cognitive mechanisms that underlie clinical reasoning and decision-making in the operating room. Future studies should further explore this topic, especially the relationship between the occurrence of intraoperative cognitive biases and postoperative surgical outcomes. Additionally, the impact of metacognition strategies (e.g. debiasing training) on reducing the impact of cognitive bias and improving intraoperative performance should also be investigated.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Cognitive load (CogL) is increasingly recognized as an important resource underlying operative performance. Current innovations in surgery aim to develop objective performance metrics via physiological monitoring from wearable digital sensors. Surgeons have access to consumer technology that could measure CogL but need guidance regarding device selection and implementation. To realize the benefits of surgical performance improvement these methods must be feasible, incorporating human factors usability and design principles. This paper aims to evaluate the feasibility of using wearable sensors to assess CogL, identify the benefits and challenges of implementing devices, and develop guidance for surgeons planning to implement wearable devices in their research or practice. METHODS: We examined the feasibility of wearable sensors from a series of empirical studies that measured aspects of clinical performance relating to CogL. Across four studies, 84 participants and five sensors were involved in the following clinical settings: (i) real intraoperative surgery; (ii) simulated laparoscopic surgery; and (iii) medical team performance outside the hospital. RESULTS: Wearable devices worn on the wrist and chest were found to be comfortable. After a learning curve, electrodermal activity data were easily and reliably collected. Devices using photoplethysmography to determine heart rate variability were significantly limited by movement artifact. There was variable success with electroencephalography devices regarding connectivity, comfort, and usability. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to use wearable sensors across various clinical settings, including surgery. There are some limitations, and their implementation is context and device dependent. To scale sensor use in clinical research, surgeons must embrace human factors principles to optimize wearability, usability, reliability, and data security.
