Expert Intraoperative Judgment and Decision-Making: Defining the Cognitive Competencies for Safe Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bile duct injuries from laparoscopic cholecystectomy remain a significant source of morbidity and are often the result of intraoperative errors in perception, judgment, and decision-making. This qualitative study aimed to define and characterize higher-order cognitive competencies required to safely perform a laparoscopic cholecystectomy. STUDY DESIGN: Hierarchical and cognitive task analyses for establishing a critical view of safety during laparoscopic cholecystectomy were performed using qualitative methods to map the thoughts and practices that characterize expert performance. Experts with more than 5 years of experience, and who have performed at least 100 laparoscopic cholecystectomies, participated in semi-structured interviews and field observations. Verbal data were transcribed verbatim, supplemented with content from published literature, coded, thematically analyzed using grounded-theory by 2 independent reviewers, and synthesized into a list of items. RESULTS: A conceptual framework was created based on 10 interviews with experts, 9 procedures, and 18 literary sources. Experts included 6 minimally invasive surgeons, 2 hepato-pancreatico-biliary surgeons, and 2 acute care general surgeons (median years in practice, 11 [range 8 to 14]). One hundred eight cognitive elements (35 [32%] related to situation awareness, 47 [44%] involving decision-making, and 26 [24%] action-oriented subtasks) and 75 potential errors were identified and categorized into 6 general themes and 14 procedural tasks. Of the 75 potential errors, root causes were mapped to errors in situation awareness (24 [32%]), decision-making (49 [65%]), or either one (61 [81%]). CONCLUSIONS: This study defines the competencies that are essential to establishing a critical view of safety and avoiding bile duct injuries during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This framework may serve as the basis for instructional design, assessment tools, and quality-control metrics to prevent injuries and promote a culture of patient safety.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".