ArticleBMJ open2021
Exploring human factors in the operating room: a protocol for a scoping review of training offerings for healthcare professionals.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Attitudes Toward Patient Safety in Operating Rooms: Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the French Version of the Operating Room Management Attitudes Questionnaire (ORMAQ).Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The low data fidelity of human-based informatics in surgical instrument waste reduction: is it time for objective computer vision integration?BMC health services research · 2026Observational
- Exploring human factors in the operating room: scoping review of training offerings for healthcare professionals.BJS open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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 ANALYSIS: This 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 DISSEMINATION: Research 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.
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.