MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2514590573 · doi:10.1097/sla.0000000000001962

What Are the Principles That Guide Behaviors in the Operating Room?

2016· article· en· W2514590573 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Surgery · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionMedicineTask (project management)Psychomotor learningInterpersonal communicationApplied psychologyPatient safetySocial skillsMedical educationPsychologySocial psychologyHealth carePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To identify the core principles that guide expert intraoperative behaviors and to use these principles to develop a universal framework that defines intraoperative performance. BACKGROUND: Surgical outcomes are associated with intraoperative cognitive skills. Yet, our understanding of factors that control intraoperative judgment and decision-making are limited. As a result, current methods for training and measuring performance are somewhat subjective-more task rather than procedure-oriented-and usually not standardized. They thus provide minimal insight into complex cognitive processes that are fundamental to patient safety. METHODS: Cognitive task analyses for 6 diverse surgical procedures were performed using semistructured interviews and field observations to describe the thoughts, behaviors, and actions that characterize and guide expert performance. Verbal data were transcribed, supplemented with content from published literature, coded, thematically analyzed using grounded-theory by 4 independent reviewers, and synthesized into a list of items. RESULTS: A conceptual framework was developed based on 42 semistructured interviews lasting 45 to 120 minutes, 5 expert panels and 51 field observations involving 35 experts, and 135 sources from the literature. Five domains of intraoperative performance were identified: psychomotor skills, declarative knowledge, advanced cognitive skills, interpersonal skills, and personal resourcefulness. Within the advanced cognitive skills domain, 21 themes were perceived to guide the behaviors of surgeons: 18 for surgical planning and error prevention, and 3 for error/injury recognition, rescue, and recovery. The application of these thought patterns was highly case-specific and variable amongst subspecialties, environments, and individuals. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a comprehensive definition of intraoperative expertise, with greater insight into the complex cognitive processes that seem to underlie optimal performance. This framework provides trainees and other nonexperts with the necessary information to use in deliberate practice and the creation of effective thought habits that characterize expert performance. It may help to identify gaps in performance, and to isolate root causes of surgical errors with the ultimate goal of improving 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.423
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.014 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it