Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

High Reliability: The Next Frontier for Patient Safety in Surgery

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Towards the Future of Surgery

Part of the book series: New Paradigms in Healthcare ((NPH))

  • 51 Accesses

Abstract

The consistent assurance of patient safety in surgery remains challenging due to the risk stratification related to the surgical acuity and the patients’ individual underlying conditions, in conjunction with the wide variability of surgical care provided around the globe. High reliability organizations (HROs) in other high-risk industries outside of healthcare have provided the proof of concept that consistent safe performance is indeed achievable by designing streamlined processes with redundant fail-safe backup options. The key aspect of high reliability in healthcare consists of the imperative that a medical error or surgical complication will not directly lead to patient harm. Arguably, the next frontier in surgical patient safety is for surgeons to embrace the lessons learned from high reliability organizations as a “surgical responsibility.” This includes surgeon leadership and accountability toward adhering to standardized safety protocols, including surgical safety checklists, in conjunction with mastering non-technical skills, including tools of effective communication, with the goal of improving surgical patient outcomes with consistency on a global scale.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Stahel PF, Stahel VP. Principles of surgical patient safety. In: Pape HC, Borrelli J, Moore EE, Pfeifer R, Stahel PF, editors. Textbook of polytrauma management: a multidisciplinary approach. 3rd ed. Springer Nature; 2022. p. 631–40.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Stahel PF, Butler N. Effective communication: tips and tricks. In: Stahel PF, Mauffrey C, editors. Patient safety in surgery. New York, NY: Springer; 2014. p. 115–21.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Oster CA, Braaten JS. High reliability organizations: a healthcare handbook for patient safety & quality. 2nd ed. Indianapolis, IN: Sigma Theta Tau International; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Stahel PF. Blood, Sweat & Tears: becoming a better surgeon. Shropshire: TFM Publishing; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Di Saverio S, Tugnoli G, Catena F, Birindelli A, Coniglio C, Gordini G. Surgeon accountability for patient safety in the acute care surgery paradigm: a critical appraisal and need of having a focused knowledge of the patient and a specific subspecialty experience. Patient Saf Surg. 2015;9:38.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Fan CJ, Pawlik TM, Daniels T, et al. Association of safety culture with surgical site infection outcomes. J Am Coll Surg. 2016;222(2):122–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wachter RM. Understanding patient safety. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Stahel PF, Mauffrey C. Patient safety in surgery. New York, NY: Springer; 2014.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Makary MA, Daniel M. Medical error—the third leading cause of death in the US. BMJ. 2016;353:i2139.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. James JT. A new, evidence-based estimate of patient harms associated with hospital care. J Patient Saf. 2013;9(3):122–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Stahel PF. NASA’s proven safety culture paradigm. Safe Care. 2015;4:54–7.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Stahel PF, Mauffrey C, Butler N. Current challenges and future perspectives for patient safety in surgery. Patient Saf Surg. 2014;8:9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Greenberg CC, Regenbogen SE, Studdert DM, et al. Patterns of communication breakdowns resulting in injury to surgical patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;204(4):533–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Stahel PF. Surgical patient safety: a case-based approach. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cruz SS, Mick J. A high reliability Organization's use of the evidence-based practice process to eliminate an identified potential for wrong-site surgery. AORN J. 2020;112(5):520–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ross J. Aviation tools to improve patient safety. J Perianesth Nurs. 2014;29(6):508–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Woltz S, Krijnen P, Pieterse AH, Schipper IB. Surgeons' perspective on shared decision making in trauma surgery. A national survey. Patient Educ Couns. 2018;101(10):1748–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cobianchi L, Dal Mas F, Massaro M, et al. Hand in hand: a multistakeholder approach for co-production of surgical care. Am J Surg. 2022;223(1):214–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Dal Mas F, Biancuzzi H, Massaro M, Miceli L. Adopting a knowledge translation approach in healthcare co-production. A case study. Manag Decis. 2020;58:1841–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Briggs A, Raja AS, Joyce MF, et al. The role of nontechnical skills in simulated trauma resuscitation. J Surg Educ. 2015;72(4):732–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Stahel PF, Cobianchi L, Dal Mas F, et al. The role of teamwork and non-technical skills for improving emergency surgical outcomes: an international perspective. Patient Saf Surg. 2022;16:8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Cobianchi L, Dal Mas F, Massaro M, et al. Team dynamics in emergency surgery teams: results from a first international survey. World J Emerg Surg. 2021;16:47.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Cobianchi L, Dal Mas F, Massaro M, Fugazzola P, Catena F, Ansaloni L. Knowledge management and dynamics as perceived by emergency surgery teams: a quantitative study. In: Garcia-Perez A, Simkin L, editors. Proceedings of the 22nd European Conference on Knowledge Management (ECKM 2021). Coventry: Academic Conferences & Publishing International ltd; 2021. p. 217–24.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Dal Mas F, Bagarotto EM, Cobianchi L. Soft skills effects on knowledge translation in healthcare. Evidence from the field. In: Lepeley MT, Beutell N, Abarca N, Majluf N, editors. Soft skills for human centered management and global sustainability. New York, NY: Routledge; 2021. p. 95–109.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Cobianchi L, Dal Mas F, Angelos P. One size does not fit all—translating knowledge to bridge the gaps to diversity and inclusion of surgical teams. Ann Surg. 2021;273(2):e34–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Eysenbach G. Improving the quality of web surveys: the checklist for reporting results of internet E-surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res. 2004;6(3):e34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Cobianchi L, Piccolo D, Dal Mas F, et al. Surgeons' perspectives on artificial intelligence to support clinical decision-making in trauma and emergency contexts: results from an international survey. World J Emerg Surg. 2023;18(1):1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Cobianchi L, Dal Mas F, Catena F, Ansaloni A. Artificial intelligence and clinical decision-making in emergency surgery. A research protocol. In: Sousa MJ, Kumar PS, Dal Mas F, Sousa S, editors. Advancements in artificial intelligence in the service sector. London: Routledge; 2022.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Biffl WL, Gallagher AW, Pieracci FM, Berumen C. Suboptimal compliance with surgical safety checklists in Colorado: a prospective observational study reveals differences between surgical specialties. Patient Saf Surg. 2015;9:5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Peceny P, Biffl WL. Surgical safety checklists - pitfalls and pearls. In: Stahel PF, editor. Surgical patient safety: a case-based approach. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2018. p. 21–30.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Undre S, Healey AN, Darzi A, Vincent CA. Observational assessment of surgical teamwork: a feasibility study. World J Surg. 2006;30(10):1774–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Dal Mas F, Garcia-Perez A, Sousa MJ, Lopes da Costa R, Cobianchi L. Knowledge translation in the healthcare sector. A structured literature review. Electron J Knowl Manag. 2020;18:198–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. The Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh; the Royal College of Surgeons of England; Royal College of Physicians and surgeons of Glasgow. Intercollegiate green theatre checklist compendium of evidence. Intercollegiate Green Theatre Checklist Compendium of Evidence, 2022. https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/-/media/images/rcs/about-rcs/sustainability/greentheatrechecklist.pdf. Accessed 27 May 2023.

  34. Haynes AB, Weiser TG, Berry WR, et al. A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(5):491–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Gawande A. The checklist manifesto: how to get things right, vol. 1. New York, NY: Picador; 2010. p. 64.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Stahel PF, Mehler PS, Clarke TJ, Varnell J. The 5th anniversary of the "universal protocol": pitfalls and pearls revisited. Patient Saf Surg. 2009;3:14.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Stahel PF, Sabel AL, Victoroff MS, et al. Wrong-site and wrong-patient procedures in the universal protocol era: analysis of a prospective database of physician self-reported occurrences. Arch Surg. 2010;145(10):978–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Goldenberg MG, Elterman D. From box ticking to the black box: the evolution of operating room safety. World J Urol. 2020;38(6):1369–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Douglas N, Demeduik S, Conlan K, et al. Surgical caps displaying team members' names and roles improve effective communication in the operating room: a pilot study. Patient Saf Surg. 2021;15:27.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Angelos P. Interventions to improve informed consent: perhaps surgeons should speak less and listen more. JAMA Surg. 2020;155(1):13–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Wood TC, Raison N, Haldar S, et al. Training tools for nontechnical skills for surgeons: a systematic review. J Surg Educ. 2017;74(4):548–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Pradarelli JC, Gupta A, Lipsitz S, et al. Assessment of the non-technical skills for surgeons (NOTSS) framework in the USA. Br J Surg. 2020;107(9):1137–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Yule S, Gupta A, Gazarian D, et al. Construct and criterion validity testing of the non-technical skills for surgeons (NOTSS) behaviour assessment tool using videos of simulated operations. Br J Surg. 2018;105(6):719–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Stahel PF. Learning from aviation safety: a call for formal "readbacks" in surgery. Patient Saf Surg. 2008;2:21.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Hoover EL. Patient safety and surgeons: why the resistance? Arch Surg. 2007;142(12):1127–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Prabhakar H, Cooper JB, Sabel A, Weckbach S, Mehler PS, Stahel PF. Introducing standardized "readbacks" to improve patient safety in surgery: a prospective survey in 92 providers at a public safety-net hospital. BMC Surg. 2012;12:8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA

    Vincent P. Stahel

  2. Department of Clinical Surgical Diagnostic and Pediatric Sciences, The University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy

    Lorenzo Cobianchi

  3. Collegium Medicum, University of Social Sciences, Łodz, Poland

    Lorenzo Cobianchi & Francesca Dal Mas

  4. Department of Management, Venice School of Management, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Venice, Italy

    Francesca Dal Mas

  5. Department of Surgery, East Carolina University Brody School of Medicine, Greenville, NC, USA

    Philip F. Stahel

  6. Department of Specialty Medicine, Rocky Vista University, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Parker, CO, USA

    Philip F. Stahel

Authors
  1. Vincent P. Stahel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lorenzo Cobianchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Francesca Dal Mas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Philip F. Stahel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philip F. Stahel .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Emergency Surgery, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy

    Jacopo Martellucci

  2. Collegium Medicum, University of Social Sciences, Łodz, Poland

    Francesca Dal Mas

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Stahel, V.P., Cobianchi, L., Dal Mas, F., Stahel, P.F. (2023). High Reliability: The Next Frontier for Patient Safety in Surgery. In: Martellucci, J., Dal Mas, F. (eds) Towards the Future of Surgery. New Paradigms in Healthcare. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47623-5_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47623-5_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-47622-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-47623-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation