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.

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.

IntroductionApplying 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 analysisThis 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 disseminationResearch 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.

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.