Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Surgical Endoscopy
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 8/2005

01-08-2005 | Surgical errors section

Reducing errors in the operating room

Surgical proficiency and quality assurance of execution

Author: A. Cuschieri

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 8/2005

Login to get access

Abstract

Technical operative errors cause surgical operative morbidity and adversely affect the clinical outcome of patients. Surgical proficiency thus underpins good and safe practice. In this context, standardization of endoscopic surgical operations and their execution are essential for the procurement and maintenance of quality assurance in endoscopic surgical practice. There is no clash between individual- (surgical proficiency) and system-based defense systems in the prevention of surgical errors — both underpin safe surgical practice. Although more human factors and surgical research are needed, it is possible to formulate and adopt a surgical error reduction system for endoscopic operations based on standardization of operations, surgical operative proficiency, and human reliability assessment and its related clinical counterpart, observational clinical human reliability assessment.
Literature
1.
Archer SB, Brown DW, Smith CD (2001) Bile duct injury during LC: results of a national survey Ann Surg 234: 776–777CrossRef
2.
Billings CE, Woods DD (2001) Human error in perspective. The patient safety movement Postgrad Med 109: 13–17
3.
Brown SI, Frank TG, Cuschieri A, Sharpe R, Cartwright C (2003) Optimization of the projection screening a display system for minimal access surgery Surg Endosc 17: 1252–1255
4.
Campbell PA, Creswell AB, Frank TG, Cuschieri A (2003) Real-time thermography during vessel sealing and dissection Surg Endosc 17: 1640–1645CrossRefPubMed
5.
Cooper MJ, Reid GD, Kaloo P (2002) Respiratory symptoms as an indication of undiagnosed bowel perforation following laparoscopic surgery: an observation Aust N Z Obstet Gynaecol 42: 545–547CrossRef
6.
Csendes A, Navarrette C, Burdeles P, et al. (2001) Treatment of common bile duct injuries during LC: endoscopic and surgical management World J Surg 25: 1346–1351CrossRefPubMed
7.
Cuschieri A, (2000) Human reliability assessment in surgery—a new approach for improving surgical performance and clinical outcome Ann R Coll Surg Engl 82: 83–87PubMed
8.
Cuschieri A, (2003) Medical errors, incidents, accidents and violations Min Invas Ther Allied Technol 12: 111–120CrossRef
9.
Cuschieri A, (2003) Lest we forget the surgeon Sem Laparosc Surg 10: 141–148
10.
Doganay M, Kama NA, Rees E, et al. (2002) Management of main bile duct injuries that occur during LC Surg Endosc 16: 2CrossRef
11.
Dondrin Y, Gopher D, Olin M, et al. (1995) A look into the nature and causes of human errors in the intensive care unit Crit Care Med 23: 294–300PubMed
12.
Embrey DE (1986) SHERPA: a systematic error reduction and predictive approach. Proceedings of the Advances in Human Factors in Nuclear Power Systems meeting, Knoxville, TN, USA
13.
Ferriman A, (2000) Two thirds of injuries initially missed Br Med J 321: 784
14.
Haag R, Cuschieri A (1993) Recent advances in high-frequency electrosurgery: development of automated systems J R Coll Surg Edinburgh 38: 354–364
15.
Hanna GB, Shimi SM, Cuschieri A (1988) Task performance in endoscopic surgery is influenced by location of image display Ann Surg 227:484
16.
Hjelmqvist (2000) Complications of laparoscopic cholecystectomy as recorded in the Swedish Laparoscopic Registry. Eur J Surg Suppl 585: 18–21
17.
Kennedy A, Baccino T (1995) The effects of screen refresh rate on editing operations using a computer mouse pointing device Q J Exp Psychol 48A: 55–71
18.
Kennedy A, Murray WS (1996) Eye movement control during the inspection of words under conditions of pulsating illumination Eur J Cogn Psychol 8: 381–403
19.
Kohn LT, Coorigan JM, Donaldson MS (eds) (1999) To err is human: building a safer heath system. National Academy Press, Washington DC
20.
21.
Orlando R, Lirassi F (2000) Delayed recognition of inadvertent gut injury during laparoscopy Surg Endosc 14: 1188
22.
Putcha RV, Burdick JS (2003) Management of iatrogenic perforation Gastroenterol Clin North Am 32: 1289–1309CrossRefPubMed
23.
Rasmussen J, (1983) Skill, rules and knowledge; signals, signs, and symbols, and other distinction in human performance models IEEE Trans Systems Man Cybernetics SMC 13: 257–266
24.
Reason J (1990) Human error. Cambridge University Press, New York
25.
Reason J, (2000) Human error: models and management Br Med J 30: 768–770
26.
Savader S, Lillemoe K, Prescott C, et al. (1997) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy related bile duct injuries. A health and financial disater Ann Surg 225: 268–273CrossRefPubMed
27.
Tang B, Hanna GB, Bax NMA, Cuschieri A (2004) Analysis of technical surgical errors during initial experience of laparoscopic pyloromyotomy by a group of Dutch pediatric surgeons. Surg Endosc, online 26 Oct, 10.1007/s00464-004-8100-1
28.
Tang B, Hanna GB, Joice P, Cuschieri A (2004) Identification and categorization of technical errors by observational clinical human reliability assessment (OCHRA) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy Arch Surg 139: 1215–1220CrossRefPubMed
29.
30.
Vilas GA, (2000) Laparoscopic bowel injuries: forty ligated gynaecological cases in Canada J Obstet Gynecol Can 24: 224–230
31.
Wade NJ, (1996) Frames of reference in vision Min Invas Ther Allied Technol 5: 435–439
32.
Way LW, Stewart L, Gantert W, et al. (2003) Causes and prevention of laparoscopic bile duct injuries: analysis of 252 cases from a human factors and cognitive psychology perspective Ann Surg 237: 460–469CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Reducing errors in the operating room
Surgical proficiency and quality assurance of execution
Author
A. Cuschieri
Publication date
01-08-2005
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 8/2005
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005-8110-7

Other articles of this Issue 8/2005

Surgical Endoscopy 8/2005 Go to the issue

Original article

A prospective study of ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Training economic, and patient benefits

Editorial

Surgical errors and their prevention

Multimedia article

Laparoscopic treatment of chronic sigmoid volvulus in a young adult Multimedia submission

Original article

Totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernioplasty with titanium-coated lightweight polypropylene mesh: early results

Original article

Assessment of cyclin D1 overexpression as a prognostic factor in soft tissue sarcomas: role of laparoscopy and core needle biopsy

Original article

Laparoscopic resection of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors