Marco J Barzallo Salazar1, Howard Minkoff1, Jyothshna Bayya1, Brian Gillett2, Helen Onoriode1, Jeremy Weedon3, Lisa Altshuler4, Nelli Fisher5. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY. 3. Scientific Computing Center, State University of New York Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY. 4. Program for Medical Education Innovations and Research (PrMEIR), NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY. Electronic address: nelli.fisher@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our aim was to determine if a surgeon's behaviors can encourage or discourage trainees from speaking up when they witness a surgical mistake. STUDY DESIGN: A randomized clinical trial in which medical students (n = 55) were randomly assigned to an "encouraged" (n = 28) or "discouraged" (n = 27) group. Participants underwent personality tests to assess decision-making styles, and were then trained on basic tasks ("burn" then "cut") on a laparoscopic surgery simulator. After randomization, students assisted at a simulated laparoscopic salpingectomy. The senior surgeon used either an "encourage" script (eg, "Your opinion is important.") or a "discourage" script (eg, "Do what I say. Save questions for next time."). Otherwise, the surgery was conducted identically. Subsequently, a surgical mistake was made by the senior surgeon when he instructed students to cut without burning. Students were considered to have spoken up if they questioned the instruction and did not cut. Potential personality bias was assessed with two validated personality tests before simulation. Data were processed with Mann-Whitney and Fisher exact tests. RESULTS: The students in the encouraged group were significantly more likely to speak up (23 of 28 [82%] vs 8 of 27 [30%]; p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in personality traits, student training level (p = 1.0), or sex (p = 0.53). CONCLUSIONS: A discouraging environment decreases the frequency with which trainees speak up when witnessing a surgical error. The senior surgeon plays an important role in improving intraoperative communication between junior and senior clinicians and can enhance patient safety.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Our aim was to determine if a surgeon's behaviors can encourage or discourage trainees from speaking up when they witness a surgical mistake. STUDY DESIGN: A randomized clinical trial in which medical students (n = 55) were randomly assigned to an "encouraged" (n = 28) or "discouraged" (n = 27) group. Participants underwent personality tests to assess decision-making styles, and were then trained on basic tasks ("burn" then "cut") on a laparoscopic surgery simulator. After randomization, students assisted at a simulated laparoscopic salpingectomy. The senior surgeon used either an "encourage" script (eg, "Your opinion is important.") or a "discourage" script (eg, "Do what I say. Save questions for next time."). Otherwise, the surgery was conducted identically. Subsequently, a surgical mistake was made by the senior surgeon when he instructed students to cut without burning. Students were considered to have spoken up if they questioned the instruction and did not cut. Potential personality bias was assessed with two validated personality tests before simulation. Data were processed with Mann-Whitney and Fisher exact tests. RESULTS: The students in the encouraged group were significantly more likely to speak up (23 of 28 [82%] vs 8 of 27 [30%]; p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in personality traits, student training level (p = 1.0), or sex (p = 0.53). CONCLUSIONS: A discouraging environment decreases the frequency with which trainees speak up when witnessing a surgical error. The senior surgeon plays an important role in improving intraoperative communication between junior and senior clinicians and can enhance patient safety.
Authors: D Tahtali; F Bohmann; P Rostek; B Misselwitz; A Reihs; F Heringer; K Jahnke; H Steinmetz; W Pfeilschifter Journal: Nervenarzt Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 1.214
Authors: Thomas A D'Agostino; Philip A Bialer; Chasity B Walters; Aileen R Killen; Hrafn O Sigurdsson; Patricia A Parker Journal: AORN J Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 0.676
Authors: Jill Maben; Justin Avery Aunger; Ruth Abrams; Mark Pearson; Judy M Wright; Johanna Westbrook; Russell Mannion; Aled Jones Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-07-04 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Irene A Slootweg; Albert Scherpbier; Renée van der Leeuw; Maas Jan Heineman; Cees van der Vleuten; Kiki M J M H Lombarts Journal: Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract Date: 2015-07-31 Impact factor: 3.853
Authors: Sigall K Bell; Stephanie D Roche; Ariel Mueller; Erica Dente; Kristin O'Reilly; Barbara Sarnoff Lee; Kenneth Sands; Daniel Talmor; Samuel M Brown Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2018-07-12 Impact factor: 7.035