How Prevalent Are Hazardous Attitudes Among Orthopaedic Surgeons?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: So-called "hazardous attitudes" (macho, impulsive, antiauthority, resignation, invulnerable, and confident) were identified by the Federal Aviation Administration and the Canadian Air Transport Administration as contributing to road traffic incidents among college-aged drivers and felt to be useful for the prevention of aviation accidents. The concept of hazardous attitudes may also be useful in understanding adverse events in surgery, but it has not been widely studied. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We surveyed a cohort of orthopaedic surgeons to determine the following: (1) What is the prevalence of hazardous attitudes in a large cohort of orthopaedic surgeons? (2) Do practice setting and/or demographics influence variation in hazardous attitudes in our cohort of surgeons? (3) Do surgeons feel they work in a climate that promotes patient safety? METHODS: We asked the members of the Science of Variation Group-fully trained, practicing orthopaedic and trauma surgeons from around the world-to complete a questionnaire validated in college-aged drivers measuring six attitudes associated with a greater likelihood of collision and used by pilots to assess and teach aviation safety. We accepted this validation as applicable to surgeons and modified the questionnaire accordingly. We also asked them to complete the Modified Safety Climate Questionnaire, a questionnaire assessing the absence of a safety climate that is based on the patient safety cultures in healthcare organizations instrument. Three hundred sixty-four orthopaedic surgeons participated, representing a 47% response rate of those with correct email addresses who were invited. RESULTS: Thirty-eight percent (137 of 364 surgeons) had at least one score that would have been considered dangerously high in pilots (> 20), including 102 with dangerous levels of macho (28%) and 41 with dangerous levels of self-confidence (11%). After accounting for possible confounding variables, the variables most closely associated with a macho attitude deemed hazardous in pilots were supervision of surgical trainees in the operating room (p = 0.003); location of practice in Canada (p = 0.059), Europe (p = 0.021), and the United States (p = 0.005); and being an orthopaedic trauma surgeon (p = 0.046) (when compared with general orthopaedic surgeons), but accounted for only 5.3% of the variance (p < 0.001). On average, 19% of surgeon responses to the Modified Safety Climate Questionnaire implied absence of a safety climate. CONCLUSIONS: Hazardous attitudes are common among orthopaedic surgeons and relate in small part to demographics and practice setting. Future studies should further validate the measure of hazardous attitudes among surgeons and determine if they are associated with preventable adverse events. We agree with aviation safety experts that awareness of amelioration of such attitudes might improve safety in all complex, high-risk endeavors, including surgery-a line of thinking that merits additional research.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".