Exploring human factors in the operating room: scoping review of training offerings for healthcare professionals.

BACKGROUND: Human factors (HF) integration can improve patient safety in the operating room (OR), but the depth of current knowledge remains unknown. This study aimed to explore the content of HF training for the operative environment. METHODS: We searched six bibliographic databases for studies describing HF interventions for the OR. Skills taught were classified using the Chartered Institute of Ergonomics and Human Factors (CIEHF) framework, consisting of 67 knowledge areas belonging to five categories: psychology; people and systems; methods and tools; anatomy and physiology; and work environment. RESULTS: Of 1851 results, 28 studies were included, representing 27 unique interventions. HF training was mostly delivered to interdisciplinary groups (n = 19; 70 per cent) of surgeons (n = 16; 59 per cent), nurses (n = 15; 56 per cent), and postgraduate surgical trainees (n = 11; 41 per cent). Interactive methods (multimedia, simulation) were used for teaching in all studies. Of the CIEHF knowledge areas, all 27 interventions taught 'behaviours and attitudes' (psychology) and 'team work' (people and systems). Other skills included 'communication' (n = 25; 93 per cent), 'situation awareness' (n = 23; 85 per cent), and 'leadership' (n = 20; 74 per cent). Anatomy and physiology were taught by one intervention, while none taught knowledge areas under work environment. CONCLUSION: Expanding HF education requires a broader inclusion of the entirety of sociotechnical factors such as contributions of the work environment, technology, and broader organizational culture on OR safety to a wider range of stakeholders.

Exploring human factors in the operating room: a protocol for a scoping review of training offerings for healthcare professionals.

INTRODUCTION: Applying human factors principles in surgical care has potential benefits for patient safety and care delivery. Although different theoretical frameworks of human factors exist, how providers are being trained in human factors and how human factors are being understood in vivo in the operating room (OR) remain unknown. The aim of this scoping review is to evaluate the application of human factors for the OR environment as described by education and training offerings for healthcare professionals. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Health and Psychosocial Instruments and ERIC databases were searched on August 2020 from inception to identify relevant studies that describe the content, application and impact of human factors training for healthcare professionals or trainees who work in or interface with the OR environment. Titles, abstracts and full texts will be independently screened by two authors for eligible studies. Any disagreements will be resolved by discussion or by a third author when disagreement persists. Study information and training characteristics, such as the training tool used and type of learners and teachers, will be charted and summarised, and key themes in human factors training will be identified. Each training offering will be classified under the appropriate knowledge area(s) of human factors described by the Chartered Institute of Ergonomics & Human Factors (CIEHF). Themes that are not captured by the CIEHF framework will be independently recorded by two authors and included based on group discussion and consensus. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics board approval is not required for this scoping review. The findings of this study will be disseminated at local and national conferences and will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Intraoperative injuries from abdominopelvic surgery: an analysis of national medicolegal data.

Background: Intraoperative injuries during abdominopelvic surgery can be associated with substantial patient harm. The objective of this study was to describe abdominopelvic intraoperative injuries and their contributing factors among medicolegal cases. Methods: This study was a descriptive analysis of medicolegal matters reported to a national body, with subgroup analyses by type of surgery. We reviewed medicolegal matters involving a population-based sample of physicians who were subject to a civil legal action or complaint to a regulatory authority that was closed between 2013 and 2017 in Canada. Results: Our analysis included 181 civil legal cases and 88 complaints to a regulatory authority. Among legal cases, 155 patients (85.6%) (median age 47 yr) underwent elective procedures. The most common injury site was the bowel (53 cases [29.3%]). Injuries frequently occurred during dissection (79 [43.6%]) and ligation (38 [21.0%]), were identified postoperatively (138 [76.2%]) and necessitated further surgery (139 [76.8%]). Many patients experienced severe harm (55 [30.4%]) or died (25 [13.8%]). Peer experts in nongynecologic cases were more likely than those in gynecologic cases to include criticisms of a provider in a harmful incident (79 [71.2%] v. 30 [42.9%], p < 0.01). Peer expert criticisms often related to clinical evaluation, decision-making and misidentification of anatomy. Criticisms of nontechnical skills identified documentation and communication deficiencies. Conclusion: This study confirms the importance of provider and team training to improve clinical evaluation and decision-making, documentation and communication. Effective protocols may help support clinicians in providing safer surgical care.

Contexte: Les blessures survenant durant une chirurgie abdominopelvienne peuvent être associées à d'importants préjudices chez les patients. La présente étude avait pour but de décrire les blessures peropératoires abdominopelviennes faisant l'objet d'enquêtes médicolégales et à connaître leurs facteurs contributifs. Méthodes: Cette étude comprend une analyse descriptive d'affaires médicolégales signalées à un organisme de réglementation national, ainsi que des analyses par sousgroupes selon le type de chirurgie. Nous avons examiné des cas impliquant un échantillon de médecins canadiens représentatifs de la population qui avaient fait l'objet d'une poursuite au civil ou d'une plainte auprès d'un organisme de réglementation. Toutes les poursuites et plaintes étudiées ont été résolues entre 2013 et 2017. Résultats: Notre analyse comprenait 181 poursuites au civil et 88 plaintes auprès d'un organisme de réglementation. En ce qui concerne les poursuites au civil, 155 patients (85,6 %) (âge médian 47 ans) avaient subi une intervention non urgente. Les blessures déclarées touchaient généralement les intestins (53 cas [29,3 %]). Elles sont fréquemment survenues durant la dissection (79 cas [43,6 %]) et la ligature (38 cas [21,0 %]), ont été repérées en période postopératoire (138 cas [76,2 %]) et ont nécessité une autre chirurgie (139 cas [76,8 %]). De nombreux patients ont subi de graves préjudices (55 cas [30,4 %]) ou sont décédés (25 cas [13,8 %]). Les pairs experts dans un domaine autre que la gynécologie étaient plus susceptibles que ceux experts en gynécologie de critiquer un fournisseur en cas d'incident avec préjudice (79 cas [71,2 %] c. 30 cas [42,9 %]; p < 0,01). Les critiques formulées par les pairs experts portaient souvent sur l'évaluation clinique, la prise de décision et les erreurs d'identification des structures anatomiques. Les critiques visant les habiletés non techniques avaient trait aux lacunes dans la documentation et la communication. Conclusion: Cette étude vient confirmer l'importance que revêt la formation des fournisseurs et de leur équipe dans l'amélioration de la prise de décision, de la documentation et de la communication. Des protocoles efficaces pourraient soutenir l'offre de soins chirurgicaux sûrs par les professionnels de la santé.

Using medicolegal data to support safe medical care: A contributing factor coding framework.

OBJECTIVE: Traditional medicolegal data analysis focuses on physician care, without a full acknowledgment of the effects of team, organizational, and system factors. We developed a patient safety-informed contributing factor framework to strengthen the coding and analysis of medicolegal data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We incorporated patient safety theory and human factors science into our medicolegal case coding practices to improve our understanding of the many factors that contribute to medicolegal events. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: A new framework was developed that has at its core, patients and their experience, and looks beyond the provider factors that are often the focus of medicolegal analysis to give greater consideration to the influence of team, organizational, and system factors. We anticipate that this substantial shift will strengthen our knowledge translation efforts to help improve the safety of medical care. CONCLUSION: We believe that reframing medicolegal case coding systems to better identify the influence of team, organizational, and system factors will increase the utility of this analysis in patient safety research, and health care quality improvement.