Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / @xirurgi_2025 / @xirurgi_2025 - 868 - файл
.pdf
18 “I Can’t Ventilate!” Intraoperative Anesthesia Safety Events and Airway…
https://t.me/med1917
57. Frerk C, Mitchell VS, McNarry AF, etal. Difcult Airway Society 2015 guidelines for management of unanticipated difcult intubation in adults. Br J Anaesth. 2015;115(6):827–48.
58. Asai T, Koga K, Vaughan RS.Respiratory complications associated with tracheal intubation
and extubation. Br J Anaesth. 1998;80:767–75.
59. Peterson GN, Domino KB, Caplan RA, Posner KL, Lee LA, Cheney FW.Management of the
difcult airway: a closed claims analysis. Anesthesiology. 2005;103:33–9.
60. Cook TM, MacDougall-Davis SR.Complications and failure of airway management. Br J
Anaesth. 2012;109(S1):68–85.
61. Krebs M, Müller-Lobeck L, Francis RCE. Management of pediatric airway in anesthesia.
Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther. 2018;53(11–12):754–65. [Article in
German].
62. Tsao M, Vargas AA, Hajduk J, Singh R, Jagannathan N. Pediatric airway management
devices: an update on recent advances and future directions. Expert Rev Med Devices.
2018;15(12):911–27.
63. Glasheen J, Hooper J, Donohue A, Murray-Smith B, Finn E.Endotracheal intubation for traumatic cardiac arrest by an Australian air medical service. Air Med J. 2018;37(6):371–3.
64. Takenaka I, Aoyama K, Kadoya T.Mandibular protrusion test for prediction of difcult mask
ventilation. Anesthesiology. 2001;94:935.
65. Benumof JL.Management of the difcult adult airway. With special emphasis on awake tracheal intubation. Anesthesiology. 1991;75:1087–110.
66. Practice guidelines for management of the difcult airway: A report by the American Society
of Anesthesiologists’ task force on management of the difcult airway. Anesthesiology.
1993;78:597–602.
67. Benumof JL.Preoxygenation: best method for both efcacy and efciency. Anesthesiology.
1999;91:603–5.
68. Mort TC. Emergency tracheal intubation: complications associated with repeated laryngoscopic attempts. Anesth Analg. 2004;99:607–13.
69. Henderson JJ, Popat MT, Latto IP, Pearce AC, Difcult Airway Society. Difcult airway
society guidelines for management of the unanticipated difcult intubation. Anaesthesia.
2004;59:675–94.
70. American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Management of the Difcult Airway.
Practice guidelines for management of the difcult airway: an updated report by the
American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Management of the Difcult Airway.
Anesthesiology. 2003;98:1269–77.
71. Kheterpal S, Martin L, Shanks AM, Tremper KK.Prediction and outcomes of impossible mask
ventilation: a review of 50,000 anesthetics. Anesthesiology. 2009;110:891–7.
72. Kheterpal S, Healy D, Aziz MF, Shanks AM, Freundlich RE, Linton F, etal. Multicenter
Perioperative Outcomes Group (MPOG) Perioperative Clinical Research Committee.
Incidence, predictors, and outcome of difcult mask ventilation combined with difcult
laryngoscopy: a report from the multicenter perioperative outcomes group. Anesthesiology.
2013;119:1360–9.
73. Williamson JA, Webb RK, Szekely S, Gillies ER, Dreosti AV. The Australian Incident
Monitoring Study. Difcult intubation: an analysis of 2000 incident reports. Anaesth Intensive
Care. 1993(21):602–7.
74. Hawthorne L, Wilson R, Lyons G, Dresner M.Failed intubation revisited: 17-yr experience in
a teaching maternity unit. Br J Anaesth. 1996;76:680–4.
75. Ramachandran SK, Mathis MR, Tremper KK, Shanks AM, Kheterpal S. Predictors and
clinical outcomes from failed Laryngeal Mask Airway Unique™: a study of 15,795 patients.
Anesthesiology. 2012;116:1217–26.
76. Aziz MF, Brambrink AM, Healy DW, Willett AW, Shanks A, Tremper T, etal. Success of intubation rescue techniques after failed direct laryngoscopy in adults: a retrospective comparative
analysis from the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group. Anesthesiology. 2016;125:656.
77. Crosby ET, Cooper RM, Douglas MJ, Doyle DJ, Hung OR, Labrecque P, etal. The unanticipated difcult airway with recommendations for management. Can J Anaesth. 1998;45:757–76.
313
314
https://t.me/med1917
78. Bogetz MS.Using the laryngeal mask airway to manage the difcult airway. Anesthesiol Clin
N Am. 2002;20:863–70.
79. Krafft P, Schebesta K.Alternative management techniques for the difcult airway: esophagealtracheal Combitube. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2004;17:499–504.
80. Winterhalter M, Kirchoff K, Groschel W, Lullwitz E, Heermann R, Hoy L, etal. The laryngeal
tube for difcult airway management: a prospective investigation in patients with pharyngeal
and laryngeal tumours. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2005;22:678–82.
81. Mchugh R, Kumar M, Sprung J, Bourke D.Transtracheal jet ventilation in management of the
difcult airway. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2007;35:406–8.
82. Scrase I, Woollard M.Needle vs surgical cricothyroidotomy: a short cut to effective ventilation. Anaesthesia. 2006;61:962–74.
83. Bisschops MMA, Holleman C, Huitink JM.Can sugammadex save a patient in a simulated
‘cannot intubate, cannot ventilate’ situation? Anaesthesia. 2010;65:936–41.
84. Makris N. Sugammadex following rocuronium rapid sequence induction. Anaesthesia.
2011;66:224.
85. Naguib M, Brewer L, LaPierre C, Kopman AF, Johnson KB.The myth of rescue reversal in
“can't intubate, can't ventilate” scenarios. Anesth Analg. 2016;123:82–92.
86. Bailey C.Sugammadex: when should we be giving it? Anaesthesia. 2017;72(10):1170–5.
87. Dorges V, Ocker H, Wenzel V, Schmucker P.The laryngeal tube: a new simple airway device.
Anesth Analg. 2000;90:1220–2.
88. Asai T, Hidaka I, Kawachi S. Efcacy of LT by inexperienced personnel. Resuscitation.
2002;55:171–5.
89. Cook TM, McCormick B, Asai T.Randomized comparison of laryngeal tube with classical
laryngeal mask airway for anaesthesia with controlled ventilation. Br J Anaesth. 2003;91:373–8.
90. Hagberg C, Bogomolny Y, Gilmore C, Gibson V, Kaitner M, Khurana S.An evaluation of
insertion and function of a new supraglottic airway device, the King LTTM, during spontaneous ventilation. Anesth Analg. 2006;102:621–5.
91. Matioc AA, Olson J.Use of the laryngeal tube in two unexpected difcult airway situations:
lingual tonsillar hyperplasia and morbid obesity. Can J Anaesth. 2004;51:1018–21.
92. Cook TM, Hommers C.New airways for resuscitation? Resuscitation. 2006;69:371–87.
93. Goldman AJ, Rosenblatt WH. The LMA CTrach in airway resuscitation: six case reports.
Anaesthesia. 2006;61:975–7.
94. Liu EH, Goy RW, Chen FG.The LMA CTrach, a new laryngeal mask airway for endotracheal
intubation under vision: evaluation in 100 patients. Br J Anaesth. 2006;96:396–400.
95. Liu EH, Goy RW, Lim Y, Chen FG.Success of tracheal intubation with intubating laryngeal
mask airways: a randomized trial of the LMA Fastrach and LMA CTrach. Anesthesiology.
2008;108:621–6.
96. Heard AM, Green RJ, Eakins P.The formulation and introduction of a ‘can’t intubate, can’t
ventilate’ algorithm into clinical practice. Anaesthesia. 2009;64:601–8.
97. Greenland KB, Acott C, Segal R, Goulding G, Riley R, Merry AF.Emergency surgical airway in life-threatening acute airway emergencies-why are we so reluctant to do it. Anaesth
Intensive Care. 2011;39:578–84.
M. S. Rizk et al.
“Don’t Yell at Me!” Disruptive Behavior
https://t.me/med1917
intheOR
JuliaR.Coleman andRichardSchulick
Introduction
Surgical team dynamics, operating room environment, and surgical culture are paramount to perioperative safety, and all of these are adversely affected by disruptive
behavior in the operating room (OR). The American Medical Association has
dened disruptive physician behavior as “conduct, whether verbal or physical, that
negatively affects or that potentially may negatively affect patient care” [1].
Disruptive conduct has also been described as a behavior that is interpersonal
(directed toward others or in the presence of others), results in perceived threats to
victim and/or witnesses, and violates a reasonable person’s standard of respectful
behavior [2]. Unfortunately, disruptive behavior from physicians is particularly
prevalent, with an American College of Physician executive survey reporting that
30% of the 16,000 physician executive respondents experience disruptive behavior
at least monthly with physicians in their work environment [3]. This is even more
pronounced among surgeons, with over double the rate of complaints about disruptive conduct as compared to their nonsurgical physician peers [4]. Given the prevalence and potential consequences of disruptive behavior in the OR, it is important to
consider its effects on surgeon and staff, the learner (whether a resident or medical
student), and ultimately the patient and perioperative safety. In this chapter,
19
J. R. Coleman (*)
Department of Surgery, University of Colorado–Denver, Aurora, CO, USA
e-mail: julia.coleman@cuanschutz.edu
R. Schulick
University of Colorado Department of Surgery, Aurora, CO, USA
University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, CO, USA
University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024
J. J. Hoballah et al. (eds.), Principles of Perioperative Safety and Efciency,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41089-5_19
315
316
https://t.me/med1917
J. R. Coleman and R. Schulick
denitions and causes of disruptive behavior will be explored, as well as its downstream effects on perioperative safety. Strategies for addressing and discouraging
disruptive behavior in the OR at an individual, team, and systems level will also be
discussed.
Disruptive Behavior intheOperating Room: Causes
andManifestations
Disruptive behavior in the operating room from surgeons can manifest in a myriad
of overt to more subtle demonstrations, from aggressive verbal outbursts or throwing of items to more subtle, passive behavior including avoidance and failure to
communicate (Table19.1), all of which affect the anxiety level, performance, and
safety in the operating room [5]. In a qualitative study of interviews with perioperative staff (residents, anesthesiologists, scrub technicians, and perioperative nurses)
focused on types and causes of disruptive surgeon behavior in the perioperative
environment, Cochran and colleagues report the four themes of disruptive behavior
by surgeons: unprofessional behavior, situational stressors, cultural conditions, and
personality traits, all of which dynamically interact and contextualize operating
room staff behavior and disruptive behavior of surgeons [6]. Categories of unprofessional behavior range from “yelling,” “swearing,” “threatening,” and “disparaging
remarks” to hitting or throwing equipment. Situational stressors may include physical environment and patient-specic factors, such as unexpected outcomes in operating course, more difcult technical demands, and issues with equipment
malfunctioning. Cultural conditions can create complacency and power differentials, which result in perpetuation disruptive behavior. And lastly, personality traits
of surgeons may also be linked to more disruptive behavior and are generally linked
to a lack of teamwork attitude. All of these individual- and systems-related variables—from workplace logistics, intrapersonal aspects, and broader cultural environment to workplace relationships—dynamically interact and lead to disruptive
behavior on the part of the surgeon [7]. It is essential to understand not just the
upstream factors affecting disruptive behavior in the operating room, but also the
downstream effects, on the surgeon, the learners and team, and the patient (Fig.19.1).
Table 19.1 Categories and examples of disruptive surgeon behaviors
Category Example
Verbal
outbursts
Physical
aggression
Intrapersonal Irritability, hyperactive, complaining
Interpersonal Dismissive comments, bullying, condescending conduct, argumentative,
Passive
aggressive
Yelling, derogatory comments, profanity, threats, inappropriate anger
Throwing objects, hitting equipment, striking others
blaming
Ignoring, avoiding, refusal to perform tasks or work with others, reluctance
to answer questions, ineffective use of team, uncooperative attitude
19 “Don’t Yell at Me!” Disruptive Behavior intheOR
https://t.me/med1917
Poor communication
317
Te am and institutional culture
Situational, technical
and patient factors
Impaired individual and team
performance
Increased surgeon and team stress,
increased emplolyee attrition and
team fragmentation
Disruptive behavior in the
operating room
Communication errors, increased
litigation
Surgeon personality
Poor patient outcomes, decreased
Compromised learning
environment
Distractions
patient satisfaction
Fig. 19.1 Upstream and downstream effects of disruptive behavior in the operating room
Consequences ofDisruptive Behavior: Effect onSurgeon
andStaff
Disruptive behavior in the operating room (OR) is commonly associated with the
surgeon as the source; however, it is imperative to understand the stress that causes
disruptive behavior in the rst place and how it affects the surgeon, staff rapport and
performance, and safety in the OR.While surgery commands undivided attention
for both the simple and complex operative tasks, there are on average 20 distracting
events and/or interruptions during a single operation [8]. Stress is commonly
reported in the operating room by surgeons [9], and high levels of stress strongly
negatively correlate with surgeon performance [7, 10, 11]. These distractions can
vary from conversations unrelated to the task at hand to people entering and leaving
the OR to equipment issues, all of which translate to increased workload, decreased
communication, and poor coordination on the part of the surgical team [12]. These
distracting events that compromise communication and teamwork can ultimately
lead to and/or be catalyzed by disruptive behavior by the surgeon, including verbal
outbursts, unprofessional treatment of operating room staff, and passive aggression.
The downstream effect is compromised team performance deviation, with inconsistent completion of tasks in the operating room, deviation from protocols, lower
completion of patient checklists with the surgeons and nurses intraoperatively, and
compromised perioperative safety [13]. A prospective observational study of complex general surgery cases in an academic hospital found that problems in
318
https://t.me/med1917
communication and information ow, in addition to workload and competing tasks,
had a measurable negative impact on team performance [14]. Another prospective
observational study of 48 surgical procedures and 90h of surgical teams at work
identied that one-third of communication errors, including disruptive verbal communication, resulted in “visible effects on the system processes” including inefciency, team tension, resource waste, delay, and procedural error [15].
The effects of disruptive behavior and interruptions on the surgeon and team
highlight the importance of teamwork for perioperative safety. Davies and colleagues describe the six components of effective teamwork in the operating room
(situational awareness, problem identication, decision-making, workload distribution, time management, and conict resolution). Several of the components involve
minimizing, addressing, and/or managing disruptive behavior in the OR [16].
Disruptive behavior in the OR not only alters the team dynamics of providers,
but also burdens the surgeon and staff individually. One study of focus groups with
OR nurses and surgeons at ve different hospitals revealed that disruptive behavior
and harsh language cause conict in OR teams and negative culture, which ultimately can lead to termination of effective, working relationships [17]. Bullying of
staff registered nurses in the workplace, from other nurses and surgeons, in the form
of public humiliation, isolation, and/or excessive criticism often results in staff leaving the workplace [18, 19]. This rate of turnover in staff can perpetuate fragmentation of teams, which hampers team cohesion and communication, both essential for
perioperative safety. Further, disruptive behavior in the operating room can also
affect the wellness of individual surgeons, with higher levels of burnout [20] and
depression and decreased self-esteem [21] in those with higher occupational stress.
From physical performance to mental health and wellness, disruptive behavior has
distinct effects on operating surgeons and staff, which has implications for their
learners and patients.
J. R. Coleman and R. Schulick
Consequences ofDisruptive Behavior: Effect onLearner
It is paramount to consider the effects of disruptive behavior in the operating room
on the learners, in particular medical students and residents who are instrumental in
perpetuating a culture of safety in patient care. In a survey of more than 400 trainees
(medical students, interns, residents, and fellows), the majority reported experiencing mistreatment during their education, in the form of verbal abuse, specialtychoice discrimination, noneducational tasks, withholding learning opportunities,
neglect, and gender/racial insensitivity [22]. This mistreatment is particularly prevalent within surgery, with surveyed medical students reporting the highest rate perception of mistreatment within surgery specically [23, 24]. Disruptive behavior in
the operating room or among surgical teams directed at the learner is not limited to
medical students, with an EAST Multicenter Trial published in 2019 reporting that
surveyed surgical residents commonly report discrimination and harassment [25].
Due to the hierarchal structure of surgical teams, residents and medical students
often not only are the brunt of demeaning and disrespectful behavior, but also feel
19 “Don’t Yell at Me!” Disruptive Behavior intheOR
https://t.me/med1917
disempowered to address such unprofessional behavior. This has implications for
perioperative safety, in that learners feel further disempowered by the culture created from disruptive behavior to address concerns about perioperative safety when
they arise [26]. This is signicant, given that students’ speaking up about safety
concerns is linked to improved patient safety [27].
The power differential between attending surgeons and learners in the setting of
disruptive surgeon behavior can ultimately cause undue stress in the operating
room, which ultimately permeates into the learner’s didactic experience. Surgeons
and surgical trainees report a culture against complaining about stress because
“stress is seen as a failing” [28]. In a series of group and individual surgical residents and surgeons, Musselman and colleagues found that despite surgery residents
reporting intimidation and harassment in the operating room, they rationalized dysfunctional, disruptive behavior in the operating room as functional educational tools
necessary for advancement [29]. Stress related to disruptive behavior in the operating room can ultimately hamper a culture conducive to learning. Medical students
and residents may not perform as well [30] or feel as comfortable asking questions
[31] in a tense environment caused and propagated by disruptive behavior. In a
study of 24 medical students and residents, ability to perform laparoscopic skills in
the setting of increased stress was compromised such that negative stress-coping
strategies correlated with longer time to complete tasks, more apt for errors, and less
economy of motion [11]. An effective learning environment mandates a culture of
professionalism and respect, with a zero-tolerance policy for disrespectful, disruptive behavior [32].
Not only does an environment free of disruptive behavior aimed at medical students and/or residents optimize the learning experience, but also contributes to a
new culture in the rising generation of surgeons, which discourages disruptive
behavior in the OR and promotes perioperative safety. The “hidden curriculum” of
medical school and residency training is often thought of as learning the behavioral
norms and values of the surgical culture [33]. When a learner (whether medical
student or resident) witnesses disruptive behavior on the part of the attending surgeon, it can normalize and perpetuate such behavior patterns [7]. Further, medical
students who are exposed to disruptive attending behavior and/or perceived mistreatment are less likely to have an interest in and respect for surgical specialties [6,
34]. Beyond inuencing career choice, the high levels of stress from disruptive
interactions can also negatively impact resident wellness, contributing to burnout
and depression [35].
319
Consequences ofDisruptive Behavior: Effect onPerioperative
Safety andPatient
While disruptive behavior in the OR creates anxiety and compromised intraoperative team communication, the most important downstream effect is on the performance of the team and consequent perioperative safety and patient outcomes [36].
Compromised performance can be in the form of communication problems or
320
https://t.me/med1917
J. R. Coleman and R. Schulick
technical errors on the part of the surgeon, with the ultimate end consequence of
compromised perioperative safety. In a retrospective cohort study using the
American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program
database of more than 10,000 surgical procedures performed by general and vascular surgeons, there was a direct link between number of complaints about a surgeon
and adverse surgical outcomes [37].
Since the “To Err is Human” report was published in 1999, there has been a
renewed focus in the medical community and lay community at large in understanding, preventing, and managing medical error [38]. Of malpractice claims led
against surgeons, nearly 80% are related to an error in the intraoperative phase of
care [39]. While there have been few studies to perform root-cause analyses of error
in the operating room, surveys from attending and resident surgeons suggest that
errors can result from being distracting from communication problems and interpersonal conict in the operating room. In an observational study of surgical teams in
the operating room, Catchpole and colleagues report that surgeons with high levels
of leadership and management skills and situational awareness fostered teamwork
and had fewer surgical errors [40]. This correlation has been described in other
observational studies of surgical teams, one of which identied increased odds of
complications and patient death when surgical teams do not demonstrate teamwork
and open communication, including speaking up during critical moments, along
with disruptive interactions [41]. Other studies have also described near misses and
compromised patient safety due to a lack of leadership and/or communication errors
in the operating room [14]. A surgeon review of 444 surgical malpractice claims
from four liability insurers identied 60 cases involving communication breakdown
resulting in harm to patients, the majority of which involved an attending surgeon
(and occasionally a resident) [42]. Not only can communication errors occur with
disruptive behavior in the OR, but disruptive behavior can also affect clinical
decision- making among clinicians, translating into poor patient outcomes [2, 43].
This highlights the fact that the greatest victim of disruptive behavior in the OR is
not the surgeon, staff, or learner, but the patient.
The most concerning aspect of disruptive surgeon behavior on patient care is that
the environment created by disruptive behavior may prevent or discourage OR team
members from speaking up about discomfort with operative or postoperative course
events and decision-making, similar to the hesitancy reported by residents [6]. In a
cross-sectional study of 244 surgeons and surgical nurses, disruptive behavior was
reported by the majority of respondents (83%), and reported to be perpetuated
because of lack of consequences and hesitance to report or address disruptive behavior due to fear of retaliation, lack of change, lack of security, and culture [44]. Other
surveys of perioperative staff that work with surgeons report difculty voicing opinions about disagreement or perceived problems in patient care [45, 46]. While situational stressors unique to a patient case may arise, disruptive behavior may be
perpetuated by cultural factors; staff in the OR may not feel that there is “social
infrastructure” to voice concerns about disruptive behavior and communication
problems in the operating room, ultimately posing higher risk of medical and surgical errors [47].
19 “Don’t Yell at Me!” Disruptive Behavior intheOR
https://t.me/med1917
321
Strategies forPreventing, Addressing, andManaging
Disruptive Behavior intheOR
While the factors that inuence disruptive behavior in the operating room are complex and interactive, so must the solutions be to create an environment in which
disruptive behavior can be prevented, managed, and/or addressed effectively.
Individual Level
While a shift in culture and “top-down” approaches from leadership are ultimately
required to prevent and address disruptive behavior in the OR, programming at the
individual level is crucial. This should be done at every level of participant in the
surgical team and should start early. Despite the pervasiveness of self-reported mistreatment by medical students in the operating room, there is no systematic, institutional strategy for helping medical students dealing with stress and promoting a
culture of safety [28]. Trainees are not instructed on how to manage intraoperative
stressors, how to cope through observing similar scenarios, or how to speak up
about concerns related to perioperative safety. Crisis or stress management interventions, consisting of didactics, simulation exercises, and individualized specic
feedback, have yet to be widely adopted into medical student and resident training,
despite their established effectiveness [28]. One academic program described medical students as feeling more comfortable addressing disruptive behavior in the operating room after a “mistreatment course” incorporating into their surgery clerkship
didactics, which included lectures and hands-on role-playing scenarios [48]. Other
programs have incorporated a year-long curriculum into third- or fourth-year curriculum, which focuses on tenants of professionalism and discourages disruptive
behavior in the OR on the part of the individual, but also as an observer of disruptive
behavior [49]. In the era of increasing incorporation of simulation into didactics for
medical students and residents, there is also great opportunity to utilize simulation
labs for learning communication and working within a teamwork-focused environment with the ability to prevent and/or address disruptive behavior and downstream
safety in the OR [50–52]. Gettman and colleagues describe a simulation lab didactics in which urology residents are faced with two clinical scenarios (insufator
failure or carbon dioxide embolism): one before-and-after simulation didactics that
focused on teamwork improved residents’ consequent adherence to best safe practice and maintenance of positive rapport among team members [53].
Training should be implemented not only at the resident level to optimize teamwork and communication skills, but also at the level of the attending surgeons.
Surgeons, as leaders in the operating room, should be cognizant of their internal and
external stressors, which may affect their performance levels and behavior in an
undisrupted environment. This type of self-awareness can come from leadership
and professional development in conjunction with development in surgical skills, in
which stress management, conict resolution, and teamwork are emphasized. Stress
management education, not dissimilar to what is taught in the aviation and military
322
https://t.me/med1917
eld, focused on self-awareness, focus, relaxation, positive self-talk, visualization,
and team building and has been shown to optimize surgical performance [54].
J. R. Coleman and R. Schulick
Team Level
Preventing, minimizing, and addressing disruptive behavior in the OR require a
team culture and team approach. Team training programs focused on dealing with
intraoperative stressors, and fostering an environment of respectful, open communication is key to creating the cultural shift required to prevent disruptive behaviors in
the OR.These programs should include training for situations in which disruptive
behaviors occur, along with effective strategies such as discussing situations with
involved individuals and articulating problems and possible solutions [5] and/or
coaching programs to staff about addressing and preventing disruptive behavior
[55]. One such program is TeamSTEPPS, a federally sponsored evidence-based
team training program for health care professionals [56]. The program involves a
top-down approach with initial leadership training for Chairs and OR Directors,
followed by training of all staff and appointment of team “champions,” which
focuses on teamwork in the OR, minimizing disruptive behavior in the OR, and
addressing it when it arises. Self-rated communication and teamwork among residents and attending surgeons, as well as other OR staff, increase signicantly after
implementation of the nine-month TeamSTEPPS training [56]. Similar to
TeamSTEPPS, Medical Team Training (MTT) is a one-day intensive training for
OR staff aimed at improving teamwork, minimizing disruption in the OR, and optimizing patient safety through didactic modules, videos, and role-playing. Such a
program has been shown to increase subjective sense of teamwork and patient safety
among OR staff, as well as improved efciency in case turnover [57]. There are
other descriptions of individual institution’s assessment of their own hospital and
surgery staff team needs, and creation of a unied stance on professionalism and
communication in the operating room, followed by training with the whole OR staff
with focus on addressing disruptive behavior [58]. The program implementation
improved conict resolution and teamwork with the operative staff after 6months,
highlighting that investment in teams can have a lasting effect on the surgical culture of an institution.
Systems Level
Despite the pervasively reported high levels of disruptive behavior from surgeons,
only 3–4% of physicians are referred for remediation for unprofessional, disruptive
behavior [59]. This discordance highlights a potential area of systemic intervention.
Not only should a culture of reporting and proactively addressing disruptive behavior be encouraged in the spirit of patient safety, but also when it is, appropriate
mechanisms should be in place for remediating surgeons. This can be fostered by
professional standards that shift the culture toward a no-tolerance policy against
Соседние файлы в папке @xirurgi_2025