Background Confidential reporting systems play a key role in capturing information about adverse surgical events. However, the value of these systems is limited if the reports that are generated are not subjected to systematic analysis. The aim of this study was to provide the first systematic analysis of data from a novel surgical confidential reporting system to delineate contributory factors in surgical incidents and document lessons that can be learned. Methods One-hundred and forty-five patient safety incidents submitted to the UK Confidential Reporting System for Surgery over a 10-year period were analysed using an adapted version of the empirically-grounded Yorkshire Contributory Factors Framework. Results The most common factors identified as contributing to reported surgical incidents were cognitive limitations (30.09%), communication failures (16.11%) and a lack of adherence to established policies and procedures (8.81%). The analysis also revealed that adverse events were only rarely related to an isolated, single factor (20.71%) - with the majority of cases involving multiple contributory factors (79.29% of all cases had more than one contributory factor). Examination of active failures - those closest in time and space to the adverse event - pointed to frequent coupling with latent, systems-related contributory factors. Conclusions Specific patterns of errors often underlie surgical adverse events and may therefore be amenable to targeted intervention, including particular forms of training. The findings in this paper confirm the view that surgical errors tend to be multi-factorial in nature, which also necessitates a multi-disciplinary and system-wide approach to bringing about improvements.

No abstract

Introduction Healthcare professionals increasingly recognise how human factors (HF) can contribute to medical error. An understanding of HF is also important during other high stakes activities such as summative assessments or examinations. National organisations hosting such events need to be aware of potential fatigue, boredom and stress that can occur in interviewers during these often repetitive activities. Methods A previously validated questionnaire based around the well known HF analysis and classification system (HFACS) was used to evaluate four factors (care and support, asking questions about the role as an interviewer, working within the rules and boundaries, and stress and pressure) at the 2018 UK general and vascular surgery trainee national selection process. Results A total of 92 questionnaires were completed and analysed (48% response rate). After recoding for negative phrased questions, no significant differences were found between years of experience in the selection process and mean scores obtained for all four factor items. Interviewers had a positive experience during national selection with mean factor scores ranging from 3.84 to 3.98 (out of a maximum satisfaction score of 5). Conclusions Organisations need to plan carefully and recognise the human element to ensure that their interviewers are cared for during any high stakes assessment such as national selection. Our work suggests that a positive assessor experience will further help contribute to a reliable and fair recruitment process.

No abstract

No abstract