Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38899270›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

A Quantitative Analysis of Intraoperative Distractions and When They Occur During General Surgical Operations.

David Raftery, Shanen Emmanuel, George Ramsay

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

David RafteryGeneral Surgery, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, GBR.
Shanen EmmanuelGeneral Surgery, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, GBR.
George RamsayHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, GBR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction Distractions in operating theatres prevent team members from concentrating on the complex tasks required for a successful operation. This can be a potential hazard to care for, and previously, correlations have been made between increased theatre distractions and adverse events. However, it remains unclear how frequently such events occur during routine care in theatres. The present study aims to quantify distractions and analyse any differences between staff groups, operative stages, and modes of operation. Methods A single-centre prospective study was conducted to assess disruptions in general surgical theatres. Events were recorded using a previously described categorization system on a proforma by a single researcher. The source and severity of distraction were recorded, as well as the mode of operation (elective/emergency), stage of operation, and staff team (scrubbed/floor). Results A total of 4,219 minutes of surgery were observed over four weeks, and 1,095 distraction events were recorded. Of the 14 elective and nine emergency procedures recorded, there was a mean of 54.8 distractions per procedure and a frequency of one distraction every three minutes and 51 seconds (15.6 hr

Indexed as

distractionerrorhuman factorsnon-technical skillssafe surgery

Identifiers

PMID38899270
PMCPMC11186621

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.