Clinician responses to disruptive intraoperative behaviour: patterns and norms identified from a multinational survey.

PURPOSE: Disruptive intraoperative behaviour can have detrimental consequences for clinicians, institutions, and patients. The way victims and witnesses respond to disruptive behaviour can ameliorate or exacerbate consequences. Nevertheless, previous research has neither described the responses of a multinational sample of clinicians nor developed tools to recognize and evaluate responses. METHODS: After obtaining ethics committee approval, 23 perioperative organizations distributed a survey evaluating clinician responses to disruptive behaviour. We grouped responses into four response strategies: passive, assertive, manipulative, and malicious. Thereafter, we derived norms (i.e., percentile distributions) for each response strategy using empirical distribution functions. Latent profile analysis identified groups of clinicians balancing their use of the four response strategies differently (i.e., response pattern groups). We used Chi square tests to examine associations between response pattern groups and respondent demographics. RESULTS: We analyzed 4,789 complete responses. In response to disruptive behaviour, 33.7% of clinicians altered medical care in ways that were unindicated, 54.6% avoided communication with team members, and 12.1% misled the offender. Profile analysis identified five response pattern groups: extreme passive-predominant (30.5% of clinicians), extreme assertive-predominant (20.5%), moderate passive-predominant (18.9%), moderate assertive-predominant (26.5%), and a disparate pattern (greater use of manipulative and malicious responses) (3.5%). Profession, sex, management responsibilities, and sexual orientation predicted the response pattern group (all, P < 0.001). DISCUSSION: The responses of thousands of clinicians involved passivity, manipulativeness, or maliciousness. We present norms and a response pattern classification to help organizations evaluate responses, recognize response patterns, and provide tailored support to victims and witnesses.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les comportements peropératoires perturbateurs ont des effets délétères tant sur l'équipe clinique que sur les institutions et la patientèle. La façon dont les victimes et les témoins réagissent à un comportement perturbateur peut en atténuer ou exacerber les conséquences. Néanmoins, les recherches antérieures n'ont pas décrit les réponses d'un échantillon multinational de clinicien·nes ni développé d'outils pour reconnaître et évaluer les réponses. MéTHODE: Après l'obtention de l'approbation du comité d'éthique, 23 organisations de soins périopératoires ont distribué un sondage évaluant les réponses des cliniciennes et cliniciens aux comportements perturbateurs. Nous avons regroupé les réponses en quatre stratégies de réponse : passive, assertive, manipulatrice et malveillante. Par la suite, nous avons dérivé des normes (c'est-à-dire des distributions centiles) pour chaque stratégie de réponse à l'aide de fonctions de distribution empiriques. L'analyse des profils latents a permis d'identifier des groupes de clinicien·nes équilibrant différemment leur utilisation des quatre stratégies de réponse (c.-à-d. des groupes de modèles de réponse). Nous avons utilisé des tests du chi carré pour examiner les associations entre les groupes de modèles de réponse et les données démographiques des répondant·es. RéSULTATS: Nous avons analysé 4789 réponses complètes. En réponse à un comportement perturbateur, 33,7 % des clinicien·nes ont modifié les soins médicaux d'une manière qui n'était pas indiquée, 54,6 % ont évité de communiquer avec les membres de l'équipe et 12,1 % ont induit la personne délinquante en erreur. L'analyse du profil a permis d'identifier cinq groupes de modèles de réponse : passif extrême-prédominant (30,5 % des clinicien·nes), affirmation de soi extrême-prédominante (20,5 %), passif modéré-prédominant (18,9 %), affirmation de soi modérée-prédominante (26,5 %) et attitudes disparates (utilisation accrue de réponses manipulatrices et malveillantes) (3,5 %). La profession, le sexe, les responsabilités de gestion et l'orientation sexuelle prédisaient le groupe de type de réponse (tous, P < 0,001). DISCUSSION: Les réponses de milliers de clinicien·nes impliquaient la passivité, la manipulation ou la malveillance. Nous présentons des normes et une classification des modèles d'intervention pour aider les organisations à évaluer les réponses, à reconnaître les modèles d'intervention et à fournir un soutien personnalisé aux victimes et aux témoins.

Disruptive behaviour in the operating room is under-reported: an international survey.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the reporting habits of clinicians who have been exposed to disruptive behaviour in the operating room (OR) and assess their satisfaction with management's responses to this issue. METHODS: Ethics committee approval was obtained. This was a pre-specified sub-study of a larger survey examining disruptive behaviour, which was distributed to OR clinicians in seven countries. Using Likert-style questions, this study ascertained the proportion of disruptive intraoperative behaviour that clinicians reported to management, as well as their degree of satisfaction with management's responses. Binomial logistic regression identified socio-demographic, exposure-related, and behavioural predictors that a clinician would never report disruptive behaviour. RESULTS: Four thousand, seven hundred and seventy-five respondents were part of the sub-study. Disruptive behaviour was under-reported by 96.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 95.9 to 97.0) of respondents, and never reported by 30.9% (95% CI, 29.6 to 32.2) of respondents. Only 21.0% (95% CI, 19.8 to 22.2) of respondents expressed satisfaction with management's responses. Numerous socio-demographic, exposure-related, and behavioural predictors of reporting habits were identified. Socio-demographic groups who had higher odds of never reporting disruptive behaviour included younger clinicians, clinicians without management responsibilities, both anesthesiologists and surgeons (compared with nurses), biological females, and heterosexuals (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Disruptive behaviour was under-reported by nearly all clinicians surveyed, and only one in five were satisfied with management's responses. For healthcare systems to meaningfully address the issue of disruptive behaviour, management must create reporting systems that clinicians will use. They must also respond in ways that clinicians can rely on to affect necessary change.

Abusive behaviour in Canadian and US operating rooms.

BACKGROUND: Disruptive intraoperative behaviour has detrimental effects on clinicians, institutions, and patients. Abusive behaviour is an egregious form of disruptive behaviour that has a particular risk of detrimental consequences. The prevalence of abusive behaviour in the operating room (OR) is uncertain. We therefore examined the prevalence and frequency of exposure to abusive behaviour in a cohort of Canadian and US OR clinicians. METHODS: This was a sub-study of an international survey examining disruptive behaviour in the OR. It included a cohort of clinicians from Canada and the United States who were recruited from six perioperative associations and two institutions. Clinicians were asked about their intraoperative exposure to three abusive behaviours: physical assault, verbal threats, and intimidating invasion of their personal space. From the responses, we derived the proportion of clinicians who experienced or witnessed abuse (i.e., prevalence) and the number of abusive events experienced by all respondents (i.e., frequency). RESULTS: Of the 7,465 clinicians who responded to the original international survey, 2,875 were part of this abuse sub-study (United States =1,010, Canada = 1,865). In the preceding year, 667 clinicians (23.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 21.6 to 24.8) personally experienced abuse, while 1,121 clinicians (39.0%; 95% CI, 37.2 to 40.8) witnessed colleagues being abused. In total, the group of respondents reported experiencing 14,237 abusive events in the preceding year. CONCLUSIONS: Both the number of clinicians who are exposed to abusive behaviour and the large number of reported events are concerning. Since these events can undermine team-work and affect patients, coworkers, and institutions, efforts are needed to further evaluate and manage the problem.

RéSUMé: CONTEXTE: Les comportements peropératoires perturbateurs ont des effets délétères tant sur les cliniciens que sur les institutions et les patients. Un comportement dit abusif est une forme flagrante de comportement perturbateur qui comporte un risque particulier de conséquences délétères. La prévalence des comportements abusifs en salle d'opération (SOP) est inconnue. Nous avons donc examiné la prévalence et la fréquence d'exposition à des comportements abusifs d'une cohorte de cliniciens de SOP canadiens et américains. MéTHODE: Il s'agit d'une sous-étude d'un sondage international examinant les comportements perturbateurs en SOP. Notre étude a inclus une cohorte de cliniciens du Canada et des États-Unis recrutés dans six associations périopératoires et deux institutions. On a interrogé les cliniciens à propos de leur exposition peropératoire à trois comportements abusifs : les agressions physiques, les menaces verbales et l'invasion intimidante de leur espace personnel. À partir de leurs réponses, nous avons dérivé la proportion de cliniciens ayant été victimes ou témoins d'abus (soit la prévalence) et le nombre d'événements abusifs subis par tous les répondants (soit la fréquence). RéSULTATS: Parmi les 7465 cliniciens ayant répondu au sondage international original, 2875 ont pris part à cette sous-étude sur les abus (États-Unis =1010, Canada = 1865). Au cours de l'année précédant le sondage, 667 cliniciens (23,2 %; intervalle de confiance [IC] 95 %, 21,6 à 24,8) ont personnellement subi des abus, alors que 1121 cliniciens (39,0 %; IC 95 %, 37,2 à 40,8) ont été témoins d'abus à l'égard de collègues. Au total, le groupe de répondants a été exposé à 14 237 événements abusifs au cours de l'année précédente. CONCLUSION: Tant le nombre de cliniciens exposés à des comportements abusifs que le nombre important d'événements rapportés sont inquiétants. Étant donné que ces événements peuvent nuire au travail d'équipe et affecter les patients, les collègues et les institutions, des efforts sont nécessaires afin d'évaluer ce problème et de le régler.

Prevalence and predictors of exposure to disruptive behaviour in the operating room.

PURPOSE: Disruptive intraoperative behaviour ranges from incivility to abuse. This behaviour can have deleterious effects on clinicians, students, institutions, and patients. Previous investigations of this behaviour used underdeveloped tools or small sampling frames. We therefore examined the prevalence and predictors of perceived exposure to disruptive behaviour in a multinational sample of operating room clinicians. METHODS: A total of 134 perioperative associations in seven countries were asked to distribute a survey examining five types of exposure to disruptive behaviour: personal, directed toward patients, directed toward colleagues, directed toward others, or undirected. To compare the average amount of exposure with each type, we used a Friedman's test with select post hoc Wilcoxon tests. A negative binomial regression model identified socio-demographic predictors of personal exposure. RESULTS: Of the 134 organizations approached, 23 (17%) complied. The total response rate was estimated to be 7.6% (7465/101,624). Almost all (97.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 96.6 to 97.4) of the respondents reported exposure to disruptive behaviour in the past year, with the average respondent experiencing 61 incidents per year (95% CI, 57 to 65). Groups reporting higher personal exposure included clinicians who were young, inexperienced, female, non-heterosexual, working as nurses, or working in clinics with private funding (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Perceived exposure to disruptive behaviour was prevalent and frequent, with the most common behaviours involving speaking ill of clinicians and patients. These perceptions, whether accurate or not, can result in detrimental consequences. Greater efforts are required to eliminate disruptive intraoperative behaviour, with recognition that specific groups are more likely to report experiencing such behaviours.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les comportements perturbateurs en salle d'opération vont de l'incivilité à l'abus. Ce type de comportement peut avoir des effets délétères sur les cliniciens, les étudiants, les institutions et les patients. Les études précédentes de ce type de comportement se sont servies d'outils sous-développés ou de cadres d'échantillonnage restreints. Nous avons donc examiné la prévalence et les prédicteurs d'une exposition perçue à un comportement perturbateur dans un échantillon multinational de cliniciens de salle d'opération. MéTHODE: Au total, on a demandé à 134 associations périopératoires issues de sept pays de distribuer un sondage examinant cinq types d'exposition à des comportements perturbateurs : personnel, dirigé vers les patients, dirigé vers des collègues, dirigé vers les autres, ou non dirigé. Afin de comparer le nombre moyen d'expositions à chacun de ces types de comportement, nous avons utilisé un test de Friedman accompagné d'une sélection de tests de Wilcoxon réalisés post-hoc. Un modèle de régression binomiale négative a identifié les prédicteurs sociodémographiques d'exposition personnelle. RéSULTATS: Parmi les 134 organismes contactés, 23 (17 %) ont accepté de distribuer le sondage. Le taux de réponse total était estimé à 7,6 % (7465/101 624). Presque tous (97,0 %; intervalle de confiance [IC] 95 %, 96,6 à 97,4) les répondants ont rapporté avoir été exposés à des comportements perturbateurs au cours de l'année précédente, un répondant moyen subissant 61 incidents par année (IC 95 %, 57 à 65). Parmi les groupes rapportant une exposition personnelle plus élevée, les jeunes cliniciens, ceux avec peu d'expérience, les femmes, les non-hétérosexuels, le personnel infirmier ou les personnes travaillant dans des cliniques privées (tous P < 0,05) ont été identifiés. CONCLUSION: L'exposition perçue à des comportements perturbateurs était élevée et fréquente, les comportements les plus souvent rapportés étant la médisance à l'égard des cliniciens ou des patients. Ces perceptions, qu'elles soient vraies ou non, peuvent entraîner des conséquences délétères. Des efforts plus importants sont nécessaires afin d'éliminer les comportements perturbateurs en salle d'opération, en reconnaissant que certains groupes vulnérables sont plus à risque de rapporter avoir subi de tels comportements.

Disruptive behavior in the operating room: prevalence, consequences, prevention, and management.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Disruptive workplace behavior can have serious consequences to clinicians, institutions, and patients. There is a range of disruptive behaviors, and the consequences are often underappreciated. The purpose of this manuscript is to review the definition, prevalence, consequences, prevention, and management of disruptive behavior in the operating room. RECENT FINDINGS: Although a small minority of operating room clinicians act disruptively, 98% of clinicians report having recently been exposed to disruptive behavior, with the average being 64 events per clinician per year. The causes include intrapersonal factors, workplace relationships, workplace logistics, and broader contextual factors. Disruptive behavior undermines patient care by decreasing individual and team clinical performance. It decreases clinician well being, sets a poor example for medical students who are susceptible to negative role models, and decreases hospital efficiency. The way that clinicians respond to disruptive behavior may either exacerbate or reduce the consequences of the behavior. In order to prevent disruptive behavior, the causes must be addressed. Institutions must have robust policies to deal with disruptive behavior and have preventive measures that include regular staff education. Whenever disruptive behavior does occur, it must be expeditiously addressed, which may include graded discipline. SUMMARY: Disruptive intraoperative behavior is prevalent and harms multiple parties in the operating room. Institutions require comprehensive measures to prevent the behavior and to mitigate consequences.

Disruptive behaviour in the perioperative setting: a contemporary review.

PURPOSE: Disruptive behaviour, which we define as behaviour that does not show others an adequate level of respect and causes victims or witnesses to feel threatened, is a concern in the operating room. This review summarizes the current literature on disruptive behaviour as it applies to the perioperative domain. SOURCE: Searches of MEDLINE®, Scopus™, and Google books identified articles and monographs of interest, with backreferencing used as a supplemental strategy. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Much of the data comes from studies outside the operating room and has significant methodological limitations. Disruptive behaviour has intrapersonal, interpersonal, and organizational causes. While fewer than 10% of clinicians display disruptive behaviour, up to 98% of clinicians report witnessing disruptive behaviour in the last year, 70% report being treated with incivility, and 36% report being bullied. This type of conduct can have many negative ramifications for clinicians, students, and institutions. Although the evidence regarding patient outcomes is primarily based on clinician perceptions, anecdotes, and expert opinion, this evidence supports the contention of an increase in morbidity and mortality. The plausible mechanism for this increase is social undermining of teamwork, communication, clinical decision-making, and technical performance. The behavioural responses of those who are exposed to such conduct can positively or adversely moderate the consequences of disruptive behaviour. All operating room professions are involved, with the rank order (from high to low) being surgeons, nurses, anesthesiologists, and "others". The optimal approaches to the prevention and management of disruptive behaviour are uncertain, but they include preventative and professional development courses, training in soft skills and teamwork, institutional efforts to optimize the workplace, clinician contracts outlining the clinician's (and institution's) responsibilities, institutional policies that are monitored and enforced, regular performance feedback, and clinician coaching/remediation as required. CONCLUSIONS: Disruptive behaviour remains a part of operating room culture, with many associated deleterious effects. There is a widely accepted view that disruptive behaviour can lead to increased patient morbidity and mortality. This is mechanistically plausible, but more rigorous studies are required to confirm the effects and estimate their magnitude. An important measure that individual clinicians can take is to monitor and control their own behaviour, including their responses to disruptive behaviour.

Participation of Canadian anesthesiology departments in undergraduate medical education.

PURPOSE: Historically, anesthesiology departments have played a small role in teaching the pre-clerkship component of undergraduate medical education (UGME). The purpose of this study was to measure the current participation of Canadian anesthesiologists in UGME with a focus on pre-clerkship. METHODS: Three surveys were developed in collaboration with the Association of Canadian Departments of Anesthesia. After an initial series of validation procedures, the surveys were distributed to anesthesia department heads, UGME directors, and associate deans at the 17 Canadian medical schools. RESULTS: The median [interquartile range (IQR)] percentage of anesthesiologists with teaching roles in pre-clerkship was 10.0 [3.4-21]%. The median [IQR] hours taught per anesthesiologist during pre-clerkship was 2.2 [0.4-6.1] hr·yr-1, representing an 817% increase over the last 15 years. Eleven of 17 departments contributed at a level less than expected based on their proportional faculty size, and 6 of 17 departments contributed less than 1% of pre-clerkship hours. Anesthesiology departments thought more strongly than associate deans that their contributions were limited by a lack of teaching opportunities (P = 0.01) and that their contributions were indispensable (P = 0.033). Only 12 of 17 schools had mandatory anesthesia clerkships, with a median [IQR] duration of 10 [10-11] days. CONCLUSION: The contribution of anesthesiology departments to pre-clerkship has increased over the past fifteen years but remains much less than expected based on proportional faculty size. While the increase is encouraging, the relatively poor engagement is concerning, representing not only a missed opportunity but also a possible threat to the academic standing of the profession.

Appropriateness of Language Used in Patient Educational Materials from 24 National Anesthesiology Associations.

BACKGROUND: Patient education materials produced by national anesthesiology associations could be used to facilitate patient informed consent and promote the discipline of anesthesiology. To achieve these goals, materials must use language that most adults can understand. Health organizations recommend that materials be written at the grade 8 level or less to ensure that they are understood by laypersons. The authors, therefore, investigated the language of educational materials produced by anesthesiology associations. METHODS: Educational materials were downloaded from the Web sites of 24 national anesthesiology associations, as available. Materials were divided into eight topics, resulting in 112 separate passages. Linguistic measures were calculated using Coh-Metrix (version 3.0; Memphis, USA) linguistic software. The authors compared the measures to a grade 8 standard and examined the influence of both passage topic and country of origin using multivariate ANOVA. RESULTS: The authors found that 67% of associations provided online educational materials. None of the passages had all linguistic measures at or below the grade 8 level. Linguistic measures were influenced by both passage topic (F = 3.64; P < 0.0001) and country of origin (F = 7.26; P < 0.0001). Contrast showed that passages describing the role of anesthesiologists in perioperative care used language that was especially inappropriate. CONCLUSIONS: Those associations that provided materials used words that were long and abstract. The language used was especially inappropriate for topics that are critical to facilitating patient informed consent and promoting the discipline of anesthesiology. Anesthesiology associations should simplify their materials and should consider screening their materials with linguistic software before making them public.

The impact of bispectral index versus end-tidal anesthetic concentration-guided anesthesia on time to tracheal extubation in fast-track cardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: Bispectral Index (BIS)-guided anesthesia administration has been reported to reduce the time to tracheal extubation. However, no trials have compared the ability of BIS guidance to promote earlier tracheal extubation relative to guidance by end-tidal anesthetic concentration (ETAC). We hypothesized that BIS-guided anesthesia would result in earlier tracheal extubation compared with ETAC-guided anesthesia in fast-track cardiac surgery patients. METHODS: This study consisted of patients at a single institution who were enrolled in the larger, multicenter BIS or Anesthesia Gas to Reduce Explicit Recall (BAG-RECALL) clinical trial that compared rates of postoperative awareness for patient whose anesthetic was guided by BIS versus ETAC. Patients undergoing cardiac surgery were randomized to BIS (n = 361) or ETAC (n = 362) guided anesthesia. Volatile anesthetic was titrated either to maintain a BIS value of 40 to 60 (BIS group), or an age-adjusted minimum alveolar concentration of 0.7 to 1.3 (ETAC group). In the ETAC group, anesthesiologists were blinded to the BIS values. In this substudy, time to tracheal extubation was compared between groups. Cox regression identified predictors affecting the instantaneous probability of tracheal extubation. RESULTS: Time to tracheal extubation was not significantly different between groups (odds ratio 1.04, 95% confidence interval, 0.88-1.23, P = 0.643). In addition, group assignment did not influence the instantaneous probability of tracheal extubation (P = 0.433). Predictors decreasing the instantaneous probability of tracheal extubation included higher body mass index (P = 0.001), higher logistic EuroSCORE (P = 0.015), complex surgery type (P = 0.034), and surgery completion in the evening (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with management based on ETAC, anesthetic management based on BIS guidance does not strongly increase the probability of earlier tracheal extubation in patients undergoing fast-track cardiac surgery. The decision to extubate the trachea is more influenced by patient characteristics and perioperative course than the assignment to BIS or ETAC monitoring.

Case report: Volitional delay of self-reported outcomes: insights from a case of intraoperative awareness with explicit recall.

Intraoperative awareness with explicit recall (AWR) is a self-reported outcome of interest in clinical practice, quality assurance initiatives, and clinical trials. Combining structured postoperative interviews with a preoperative description of AWR is assumed to ensure prompt patient disclosure. We describe a volitionally delayed reporting of AWR because of the perceived unimportance of nondistressing awareness experiences, despite preoperative education and 2 postoperative interviews. This delay had implications for a major randomized controlled trial on AWR. Volitionally delayed self-reported outcomes may affect statistical comparisons in clinical trials and quality assurance initiatives, and delay the treatment of subsequent sequelae in clinical practice. This limitation should be considered, even when using structured outcome assessment and preoperative education.

Relationship between bispectral index values and volatile anesthetic concentrations during the maintenance phase of anesthesia in the B-Unaware trial.

BACKGROUND: Hypnotic depth during anesthesia affects electroencephalography waveforms and electroencephalogram-derived indices, such as the bispectral index (BIS). Titrating anesthetic administration against the BIS assumes reliable relationships between BIS values, electroencephalogram waveforms, and effect site concentration, beyond loss of responsiveness. Associations among BIS, end-tidal anesthetic concentrations (ETAC), and patient characteristics were examined during anesthetic maintenance, using B-Unaware trial data. METHODS: Pharmacokinetically stable ETAC epochs during intraoperative anesthetic maintenance were analyzed. A generalized estimating equation determined independent relationships among BIS, ETAC (in age-adjusted minimum alveolar concentration equivalents), patient characteristics, and 1-yr mortality. Further individual and population characteristics were explored graphically. RESULTS: A total of 3,347,523 data points from 1,100 patients were analyzed over an ETAC range from 0.42 to 1.51 age-adjusted minimum alveolar concentration. A generalized estimating equation yielded a best predictive equation: BIS = 62.9-1.6 (if age younger than 60 yr) -1.6 (if female) -2.5 (if American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status more than 3) -2.6 (if deceased at 1 yr) -2.5 (if N2O was not used) -1.4 (if midazolam dose more than 2 mg) -1.3 (if opioid dose more than 50 morphine equivalents) -15.4 × age-adjusted minimum alveolar concentration. Although a population relationship between ETAC and BIS was apparent, interindividual variability in the strength and reliability of this relationship was large. Decreases in BIS with increasing ETAC were not reliably observed. Individual-patient linear regression yielded a median slope of -8 BIS/1 age-adjusted minimum alveolar concentration (interquartile range -30, 0) and a median correlation coefficient of -0.16 (interquartile range -0.031, -0.50). CONCLUSIONS: Independent of pharmacokinetic confounding, BIS frequently correlates poorly with ETAC, is often insensitive to clinically significant changes in ETAC, and is vulnerable to interindividual variability. BIS is therefore incapable of finely guiding volatile anesthetic titration during anesthetic maintenance.

Development of Survey Scales for Measuring Exposure and Behavioral Responses to Disruptive Intraoperative Behavior.

OBJECTIVES: Disruptive intraoperative behavior has detrimental effects to clinicians, institutions, and patients. How clinicians respond to this behavior can either exacerbate or attenuate its effects. Previous investigations of disruptive behavior have used survey scales with significant limitations. The study objective was to develop appropriate scales to measure exposure and responses to disruptive behavior. METHODS: We obtained ethics approval. The scales were developed in a sequence of steps. They were pretested using expert reviews, computational linguistic analysis, and cognitive interviews. The scales were then piloted on Canadian operating room clinicians. Factor analysis was applied to half of the data set for question reduction and grouping. Item response analysis and theoretical reviews ensured that important questions were not eliminated. Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach α. Model fit was examined on the second half of the data set using confirmatory factor analysis. Content validity of the final scales was re-evaluated. Consistency between observed relationships and theoretical predictions was assessed. Temporal stability was evaluated on a subsample of 38 respondents. RESULTS: A total of 1433 and 746 clinicians completed the exposure and response scales, respectively. Content validity indices were excellent (exposure = 0.96, responses = 1.0). Internal consistency was good (exposure = 0.93, responses = 0.87). Correlations between the exposure scale and secondary measures were consistent with expectations based on theory. Temporal stability was acceptable (exposure = 0.77, responses = 0.73). CONCLUSIONS: We have developed scales measuring exposure and responses to disruptive behavior. They generate valid and reliable scores when surveying operating room clinicians, and they overcome the limitations of previous tools. These survey scales are freely available.

The Appropriateness of Language Found in Research Consent Form Templates: A Computational Linguistic Analysis.

BACKGROUND: To facilitate informed consent, consent forms should use language below the grade eight level. Research Ethics Boards (REBs) provide consent form templates to facilitate this goal. Templates with inappropriate language could promote consent forms that participants find difficult to understand. However, a linguistic analysis of templates is lacking. METHODS: We reviewed the websites of 124 REBs for their templates. These included English language medical school REBs in Australia/New Zealand (n = 23), Canada (n = 14), South Africa (n = 8), the United Kingdom (n = 34), and a geographically-stratified sample from the United States (n = 45). Template language was analyzed using Coh-Metrix linguistic software (v.3.0, Memphis, USA). We evaluated the proportion of REBs with five key linguistic outcomes at or below grade eight. Additionally, we compared quantitative readability to the REBs' own readability standards. To determine if the template's country of origin or the presence of a local REB readability standard influenced the linguistic variables, we used a MANOVA model. RESULTS: Of the REBs who provided templates, 0/94 (0%, 95% CI = 0-3.9%) provided templates with all linguistic variables at or below the grade eight level. Relaxing the standard to a grade 12 level did not increase this proportion. Further, only 2/22 (9.1%, 95% CI = 2.5-27.8) REBs met their own readability standard. The country of origin (DF = 20, 177.5, F = 1.97, p = 0.01), but not the presence of an REB-specific standard (DF = 5, 84, F = 0.73, p = 0.60), influenced the linguistic variables. CONCLUSIONS: Inappropriate language in templates is an international problem. Templates use words that are long, abstract, and unfamiliar. This could undermine the validity of participant informed consent. REBs should set a policy of screening templates with linguistic software.