ReviewThe British journal of oral & maxillofacial surgery2020
You Have Control: aviation communication application for safety-critical times in surgery.
Review in The British journal of oral & maxillofacial surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Human factors and airway management: focus on the Swiss Airway Guidelines.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Human factors in orthopaedic surgery: making the right decisions in complexity.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025Review
- Mechanism, contributing factors, and coping strategies of alarm fatigue in intensive care nursing: a qualitative study.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Nurse understaffing associated with adverse outcomes for surgical admissions.The British journal of surgery · 2024Article
- Non-technical skills and teamwork in trauma: from the emergency department to the operating room.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Review
- [Competence and communication in the implementation of computer-assisted surgical planning].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2021Review
- Human factors application for healthcare teams in low- and medium-income countries (LMIC) to help improve patient safety and performance.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
High-risk organisations (HRO), including aviation, undergo formal communication training, with emphasis on safety-critical moments. Such training is not widespread or mandatory in healthcare, and while there are many differences both share the 'human element' with circumstances leading to an increased risk of harm. A typical operating theatre consists of an operating surgeon, and an assisting surgeon, roles that may change throughout the course of a procedure. Similarly, a training aircraft or multi-crew cockpit (flight deck) has a pilot in control, or 'pilot flying', and a 'pilot not flying'. Both interact with wider teams, for example the scrub team and air traffic controllers, respectively. Surgical error is the second most prevalent cause of preventable harm to patients after drug errors. Every year in the UK National Health Service (NHS), there are typically 500 never events, 21,000 serious incidents, and many more episodes of physical or psychological harm. Ineffective communication (46%) is the most common behavioural factor leading to a never event. In this review, we examine the concept of 'sterile cockpit', use of unambiguous terminology, callsigns, important information readback, sharing of mental models, and the mini-brief, and how these may be used to reduce patient harm during safety-critical moments.
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.