ArticleBMJ open2019
Improving the working environment for the delivery of safe surgical care in the UK: a qualitative cross-sectional analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Root causes of surgical never-events: a systematic review.Patient safety in surgery · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to identify current problems and potential solutions to improve the working environment for the delivery of safe surgical care in the UK.
designProspective, questionnaire-based cross-sectional study. SETTING/
participantsFollowing validation, an electronic questionnaire was distributed to postgraduate local education and training board distribution lists, the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (RCSEd) mailing lists and trainee organisations. This consisted of a single open-ended question inviting five open-ended responses. Throughout the 13-week study period, the survey was also published on a number of social media platforms.
resultsA total of 505 responders completed the survey, of which 35% were consultants, 30% foundation doctors, 17% specialty trainees, 11% specialty doctors, 5% core trainees and <1% surgical nurse practitioners. A total of 2238 free-text answers detailed specific actions to improve the working environment. These responses were individually coded and then grouped into nine categories (staff resources, non-staff resources, support, working conditions, communication and team work, systems improvement, patient centred, training and education, and miscellaneous).
conclusionsThe results of this study have identified a number of key areas that, if addressed, may improve the environment for the delivery of safer surgical care. Common themes that emerged across all grades included: increased front-line staff; a return to a 'firm' structure to improve team continuity; greater senior support; and improved hospital facilities to help staff rest and recuperate. While unlimited funding remains unrealistic, many of the suggestions could be implemented in a cost-neutral fashion and include insightful ideas for remodelling or restructuring the workforce to improve the efficiency of the surgical team. The findings of this study formed the basis of a set of recommendations published by the RCSEd as a discussion paper.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.