Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Ethogram to Quantify Operating Room Behavior

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Annals of Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

Background

The operating room (OR) is a highly social and hierarchical setting where interprofessional team members must work interdependently under pressure. Due primarily to methodological challenges, the social and behavioral sciences have had trouble offering insight into OR dynamics.

Purpose

We adopted a method from the field of ethology for observing and quantifying the interpersonal interactions of OR team members.

Methods

We created and refined an ethogram, a catalog of all our subjects’ observable social behaviors. The ethogram was then assessed for its feasibility and interobserver reliability.

Results

It was feasible to use an ethogram to gather data in the OR. The high interobserver reliability (Cohen’s Kappa coefficients of 81 % and higher) indicates its utility for yielding largely objective, descriptive, quantitative data on OR behavior.

Conclusions

The method we propose has potential for social research conducted in healthcare settings as complex as the OR.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rogers DA, Lingard L, Boehler ML, et al. Surgeons managing conflict in the operating room: Defining the educational need and identifying effective behaviors. Am J Surg. 2013; 205(2): 125-30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rogers DA, Lingard L. Surgeons managing conflict: A framework for understanding the challenge. J Am Chem Soc. 2006; 203(4): 568-74.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Rogers DA, Lingard L, Boehler ML, et al. Foundations for teaching surgeons to address the contributions of systems to operating room team conflict. Am J Surg. 2013; 206(3): 428-32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. King HB, Battles J, Baker DP. Teamstepps™: Team strategies and tools to enhance performance and patient safety. Advances in Patient Safety: New Directions and Alternative Approaches. Vol 3. Rockville, MD: AHRQ; 2008. Retrieved from http://teamstepps.ahrq.gov.

  5. Saltman DC, O'Dea NA, Kidd MR. Conflict management: A primer for doctors in training. Postgrad Med J. 2006; 82(963): 9-12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Donabedian A. The quality of care. How can it be assessed? JAMA. 1988; 260(12): 1743-8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gilbert HV, Yan J, Hoffman SJ. A WHO report: Framework for action on interprofessional education and collaborative practice. J Allied Health. 2010; 39((Supplement 1)): 196-7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Reeves S, Tassone M, Parker K, et al. Interprofessional education: An overview of key developments in the past three decades. Work. 2012; 41(3): 233-45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Six leading health education associations unite to form a new organization focused on interprofessional education and practice. AAMC. [news release]. February 15, 2012. https://ipecollaborative.org/uploads/IPEC-PR-2-14-12-Updated-Version.pdf.

  10. Yule S, Flin R, Maran N, et al. Surgeons’ non-technical skills in the operating room: Reliability testing of the NOTSS behavior rating system. World J Surg. 2008; 32(4): 548-56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Randall P. Adult Bullying: Perpetrators and Victims. London: Routledge; 1997.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Booji L. Conflicts in the operating theatre. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2007; 20(2): 152-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gawande AA, Zinner MJ, Studdert DM, et al. Analysis of errors reported by surgeons at three teaching hospitals. Surgery. 2003; 133(6): 614-21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rosenstein AH, O'Daniel M. A survey of the impact of disruptive behaviors and communication defects on patient safety. Jt Comm Qual Pat Saf. 2008; 34(8): 464-71.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kohn LT, Corrigan J, Donaldson MS. To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Helmreich RLDJ. Culture, threat and error: Lessons from aviation. Can J Anesth. 2005; 51(6): R1-4.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Niedhammer I, David S, Degioanni S. Association between workplace bullying and depressive symptoms in the French working population. J of Psychosom Res. 2006; 61(2): 251-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, The [JCAHO] (2015). Sentinel event statistics data: Root causes by event type (2004 - 3rd Quarter 2015); 2015. Retrieved from http://www.jointcommission.org/

  19. Pope C. Conducting ethnography in medical settings. Med Educ. 2005; 39(12): 1180-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Awad SS, Fagan SP, Bellows C, et al. Bridging the communication gap in the operating room with medical team training. Am J Surg. 2005; 190(5): 770-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lingard L, Reznick R, Espin S, et al. Team communications in the operating room: Talk patterns, sites of tension, and implications for novices. Acad Med. 2002; 77(3): 232-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lingard L, Espin S, Whyte S, et al. Communication failures in the operating room: An observational classification of recurrent types and effects. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004; 13(5): 330-4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Mitchell L, Flin R, Yule S, et al. Thinking ahead of the surgeon. An interview study to identify scrub nurses’ non-technical skills. Int J Nurs Stud. 2011; 48(7): 818-28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Parker SH, Yule S, Flin R, et al. Surgeons' leadership in the operating room: An observational study. Am J Surg. 2012; 204(3): 347-54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Parker S, Flin R, McKinley A, et al. Factors influencing surgeons’ intraoperative leadership: Video analysis of unanticipated events in the operating room. World J Surg. 2014; 38(1): 4-10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hazlehurst B, McMullen CK, Gorman PN. Distributed cognition in the heart room: How situation awareness arises from coordinated communications during cardiac surgery. J Biomed Inform. 2007; 40(5): 539-51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Guerlain S, Adams RB, Turrentine FB, et al. Assessing team performance in the operating room: Development and use of a “black-box” recorder and other tools for the intraoperative environment. J Am Chem Soc. 2005; 200(1): 29-37.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hamasaki T, Hagihara A. A comparison of medical litigation filed against obstetrics and gynecology, internal medicine, and surgery departments. BMC Med Ethics. 2015; 16(1): 72-29. Adams A, Soumerai S.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Studdert DM, Mello MM, Gawande AA, et al. Claims, errors, and compensation payments in medical malpractice litigation. N Engl J Med. 2006; 354(19): 2024-33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Forsythe DE. Using ethnography to investigate life scientists' information needs. Bull of Med Libr Assoc. 1998; 86(3): 402-9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Cassell J. The Woman in the Surgeon's Body. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Zhou M, Kelly, JJ, Video Recording: Responsibility and Liability. In The SAGES Manual of Quality, Outcomes and Patient Safety; 2012: 547–552. Springer.

  33. Campbell S, Sosa JA, Rabinovici R, et al. Do not roll the videotape: effects of the health insurance portability and accountability act and the law on trauma videotaping practices. Am J Surg. 2006; 191(2): 183-90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Eibl-Eibesfeldt I. Human Ethology. New Brunswick, N.J.: Aldine Transaction; 2007.

  35. Hawkes K. Showing off tests of an hypothesis about men’s foraging goals. Ethol Sociobiol. 1991; 12: 29-54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kaplan H, Hill K, Cadeliña RV, et al. Food sharing among ache foragers: Tests of explanatory hypotheses. Curr Anthropol. 1985; 26(2): 223-46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Mulder MB, Caro TM, Chrisholm JS, et al. The use of quantitative observational techniques in anthropology. Curr Anthropol. 1985; 26(3): 323-35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Cloak FT. Is a cultural ethology possible? Hum Ecol. 1975; 3(3): 161-82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Troisi A. Ethological research in clinical psychiatry: The study of nonverbal behavior during interviews. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 1999; 23(7): 905-13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Schelde T. Ethological research in psychiatry. Ethol Sociobiol. 1994; 15: 349-68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Warnock F. An ethogram of neonatal distress behavior in response to acute pain (newborn male circumcision). Infant Behav Dev. 2003; 26(3): 398-420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Warnock FF, Allen M. Ethological methods to develop nursing knowledge. Res Nurs Health. 2003; 26(1): 74-84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Scherer KR, Ekman P. Handbook of Methods in Nonverbal Behavior Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Immelmann K, Beer C. A Dictionary of Ethology. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press; 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Altmann J. Observational study of behavior. Sampling Methods Behav. 1974; 49(3): 227-67.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Parr LA, Cohen M, de Waal FBM. Influence of social context on the use of blended and graded facial displays in chimpanzees. Int J of Primatol. 2005; 26(1): 73-103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. de Waal FBM. The communicative repertoire of captive bonobos (Pan paniscus), compared to that of chimpanzees. Behaviour. 1988; 106(3–4): 183-251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Coiera EW, Jayasuriya RA, Hardy J, et al. Communication loads on clinical staff in the emergency department. Med J Aust. 2002; 176(9): 415-8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Spencer R, Logan P, Coiera E. (2002). Communication observation method manual. Centre for Health Informatics, University of New South Wales.

  50. Patton MQ. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Manser T, Foster S, Flin R, et al. Team communication during patient handover from the operating room: More than facts and figures. Hum Factors. 2013; 55(1): 138-56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Gardiner TM, Marshall AP, Gillespie BM. Clinical handover of the critically ill postoperative patient: An integrative review. Aust Crit Care. 2015.

  53. Morse JM. Qualitative nursing research : A contemporary dialogue. Rockville, Md.: Aspen Publishers; 1989.

  54. Midford PE. Ontologies for behavior. Bioinformatics. 2004; 20(18): 3700-1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Bakeman R, Gottman JM. Observing Interaction: An Introduction to Sequential Analysis. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1997.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  56. Viera AJ, Garrett JM. Understanding interobserver agreement: The kappa statistic. Fam Med. 2005; 37(5): 360-3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. 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 

  58. McCarney R, Warner J, Iliffe S, et al. The Hawthorne effect: A randomised, controlled trial. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007; 7: 30.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Adair JG. The Hawthorne effect: A reconsideration of the methodological artifact. J Appl Psychol. 1984; 69(2): 334-45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Thank you to Dr. William Bornstein, Chief Medical Officer and Chief Quality Officer at Emory Healthcare, as well as President/CEO John Fox, and Fred Sanfilippo, Director, Healthcare Innovation Program. This research was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number UL1TR000454. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. This research was also supported by grant number R03 HS23403-01 and its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Laura K. Jones PhD

  2. Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Bonnie Mowinski Jennings PhD, RN, FAAN

  3. Emory Healthcare Surgical Services, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Ryan M. Goelz BS

  4. South University Anesthesiologist Assistant Program, Savannah, GA, USA

    Ryan M. Goelz BS

  5. Emory Healthcare Surgical Services, Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Kent W. Haythorn MSN, RN

  6. Department of Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Joel B. Zivot MD

  7. Living Links, Yerkes National Primate Research Center and Professor at Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Frans B. M. de Waal PhD

  8. Department of Anesthesiology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Joel B. Zivot MD

Authors
  1. Laura K. Jones PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bonnie Mowinski Jennings PhD, RN, FAAN
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ryan M. Goelz BS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kent W. Haythorn MSN, RN
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Joel B. Zivot MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Frans B. M. de Waal PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura K. Jones PhD.

Ethics declarations

Author’s Statement of Conflict of Interest and Adherence to Ethical Standards

Authors Laura K. Jones, Bonnie Mowinski Jennings, Ryan M. Goelz, Kent W. Haythorn, Joel B. Zivot, and Frans B. M. de Waal declare that they have no conflict of interest involving anyone/anything associated with this manuscript. The highest ethics were practiced and all IRB stipulations were met.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jones, L.K., Jennings, B.M., Goelz, R.M. et al. An Ethogram to Quantify Operating Room Behavior. ann. behav. med. 50, 487–496 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-016-9773-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-016-9773-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation