Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 30, Issue 5, pp 1713–1724 | Cite as

A systematic review of the effect of distraction on surgeon performance: directions for operating room policy and surgical training

  • Helena M. Mentis
  • Amine Chellali
  • Kelly Manser
  • Caroline G. L. Cao
  • Steven D. Schwaitzberg



Distractions during surgical procedures have been linked to medical error and team inefficiency. This systematic review identifies the most common and most significant forms of distraction in order to devise guidelines for mitigating the effects of distractions in the OR.


In January 2015, a PubMed and Google Scholar search yielded 963 articles, of which 17 (2 %) either directly observed the occurrence of distractions in operating rooms or conducted a laboratory experiment to determine the effect of distraction on surgical performance.


Observational studies indicated that movement and case-irrelevant conversation were the most frequently occurring distractions, but equipment and procedural distractions were the most severe. Laboratory studies indicated that (1) auditory and mental distractions can significantly impact surgical performance, but visual distractions do not incur the same level of effects; (2) task difficulty has an interaction effect with distractions; and (3) inexperienced subjects reduce their speed when faced with distractions, while experienced subjects did not.


This systematic review suggests that operating room protocols should ensure that distractions from intermittent auditory and mental distractions are significantly reduced. In addition, surgical residents would benefit from training for intermittent auditory and mental distractions in order to develop automaticity and high skill performance during distractions, particularly during more difficult surgical tasks. It is unclear as to whether training should be done in the presence of distractions or distractions should only be used for post-training testing of levels of automaticity.


Distraction Surgery Safety Performance 



Design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication were supported by grants from the National Institute of Medicine (NIH NIBIB 2R01 EB005807-05A1, 1R01 EB010037-01, 1R01 EB009362-01A2, 1R01 EB014305-01A1) and the National Science Foundation (NSF IIS 1422671).

Compliance with ethical standards


Helena Mentis, Ph.D., Amine Chellali, Ph.D., Caroline G. L. Cao, Ph.D., Kelly Manser, B.A., and Steven D. Schwaitzberg, M.D. have no financial support from any private institution, and the authors have no financial relationships with any pharmaceutical or device companies.


  1. 1.
    Hodge B, Thompson JF (1990) Noise pollution in the operating theatre. Lancet 335:891–894CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shapiro RA, Berland T (1972) Noise in the operating room. N Engl J Med 287:1236–1238CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Healey AN, Sevdalis N, Vincent CA (2006) Measuring intra-operative interference from distraction and interruption observed in the operating theatre. Ergonomics 49:589–604CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    McDonald J, Orlick T, Letts M (1995) Mental readiness in surgeons and its links to performance excellence in surgery. J Pediat Orthop 15:691–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sarker SK, Vincent C (2005) Errors in surgery. Int J Surg 3:75–81CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zheng B, Martinec DV, Cassera MA, Swanström LL (2008) A quantitative study of disruption in the operating room during laparoscopic antireflux surgery. Surg Endosc 22:2171–2177CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wiegmann DA, Eggman AA, ElBardissi AW, Henrickson SE, Sundt TM (2010) Improving cardiac surgical care: a work systems approach. Appl Ergon 41:701–712CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Suh IH, Chien J-H, Mukherjee M, Park S-H, Oleynikov D, Siu K-C (2010) The negative effect of distraction on performance of robot-assisted surgical skills in medical students and residents. Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg 6:377–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rose DJ, Christina RW (2005) A Multilevel Approach to the Study of Motor Control and Learning, 2nd edn. Benjamin Cummings, Redwood CityGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hsu KE, Man F-Y, Gizicki RA, Feldman LS, Fried GM (2008) Experienced surgeons can do more than one thing at a time: effect of distraction on performance of a simple laparoscopic and cognitive task by experienced and novice surgeons. Surg Endosc 22:196–201CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Van Selst MV, Ruthruff E, Johnston JC (1999) Can practice eliminate the psychological refractory period effect? J Exp Psychol 25:1268–1283Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pashler H, Johnston JC, Ruthruff E (2001) Attention and performance. Annu Rev Psychol 52:629–651CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Welford AT (1967) Single-channel operation in the brain. Acta Psychol 27:5–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Park J, Waqar S, Kersey T, Modi N, Ong C, Sleep T (2011) Effect of distraction on simulated anterior segment surgical performance. J Cataract Refract Surg 37:1517–1522CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schneider W, Shriffin RM (1977) Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychol Rev 84:1–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Feanny MA, Scott BG, Mattox KL, Hirshberg A (2005) The impact of the 80-hour work week on resident emergency operative experience. Am J Surg 190:947–949CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Derossis AM, Bothwell J, Sigman HH, Fried GM (1998) The effect of practice on performance in a laparoscopic simulator. Surg Endosc 12:1117–1120CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Feldman LS, Hagarty SE, Ghitulescu G, Stanbridge D, Fried GM (2004) Relationship between technical skills and subjective intraining evaluations in surgical residents. J Am Coll Surg 198:105–110CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Peters JH, Fried GM, Swanstrom LL, Soper NJ, Sillin LF, Schirmer B, Hoffman K (2004) Development and validation of a comprehensive program of simulation in laparoscopy. Surg 135:21–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fried GM, Feldman LS, Vassiliou MC, Fraser SA, Stanbridge D, Ghitulescu G, Andrew CG (2004) Proving the value of simulation in laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg 240:518–528CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wiegmann DA, ElBardissi AW, Dearani JA, Sundt TM (2006) An empirical investigation of surgical flow disruptions and their relationship to surgical errors. Paper presented at the proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th annual meeting, Hilton San Francisco Hotel, 16–20 October 2006Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Healey AN, Primus CP, Koutantji M (2007) Quantifying distraction and interruption in urological surgery. Qual Saf Health Care 16:135–139CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lee JY, Lantz AG, McDougall EM, Landman J, Gettman M, Sweet R et al (2013) Evaluation of potential distractors in the urology operating room. J Endourol 27:1161–1165CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Persoon M, Broos HJHP, Witjes JA, Hendrikx AJM, Sherpbier AJJM (2011) The effect of distractions in the operating room during endourological procedures. Surg Endosc 25:437–443CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sevdalis N, Healey AN, Vincent CA (2007) Distracting communications in the operating theatre. J Eval Clin Prac 13:390–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sevdalis N, Undre S, McDermott J, Giddie J, Diner L, Smith G (2014) Impact of intraoperative distractions on patient safety: a prospective descriptive study using validated instruments. World J Surg 38(4):751–758CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Szafranski C, Kahol K, Ghaemmaghami V, Smith M, Ferrara JJ (2009) Distractions and surgical proficiency: an educational perspective. Am J Surg 198:804–810CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pluyter JR, Buzink SN, Rutkowski A-F, Jakimowicz JJ (2010) Do absorption and realistic distraction influence performance of component task surgical procedure? Surg Endosc 24:902–907CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Siu K-C, Suh IH, Mukherjee M, Oleynikov D, Stergiou N (2010) The impact of environmental noise on robot-assisted laparoscopic surgical performance. Surgery 147:107–113CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Siu K-C, Suh I, Mukherjee M, Oleynikov D, Stergiou N (2010) The effect of music on robot-assisted laparoscopic surgical performance. Surg Innov 17:306–311CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Moorthy K, Munz Y, Undre S, Darzi A (2004) Objective evaluation of the effect of noise on the performance of a complex laparoscopic task. Surgery 136:25–30CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Conrad C, Konuk Y, Werner P, Cao CG, Warshaw A, Rattner D, Jones DB, Gee D (2010) The effect of defined auditory conditions versus mental loading on the laparoscopic motor skill performance of experts. Surg Endosc 24:1347–1352CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Conrad C, Konuk Y, Werner PD, Cao CG, Warshaw AL, Rattner DW et al (2012) A quality improvement study on avoidable stressors and countermeasures affecting surgical motor performance and learning. Ann Surg 255:1190–1194CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Goodell KH, Cao CGL, Schwaitzberg SD (2006) Effects of cognitive distraction on performance of laparoscopic surgical tasks. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 15:94–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Feuerbacher RL, Funk KH, Spight DH, Diggs BS, Hunter JG (2012) Realistic distractions and interruptions that impair simulated surgical performance by novice surgeons. Arch Surg 147:1026–1030CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wong SW, Smith R, Crowe P (2010) Optimizing the operating theatre environment. ANZ J Surg 80:917–924CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helena M. Mentis
    • 1
  • Amine Chellali
    • 2
  • Kelly Manser
    • 3
  • Caroline G. L. Cao
    • 4
  • Steven D. Schwaitzberg
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Information SystemsUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore CountyBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer EngineeringUniversity of EvryÉvryFrance
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryCambridge Health AllianceCambridgeUSA
  4. 4.Department of Biomedical, Industrial and Human Factors EngineeringWright State UniversityDaytonUSA
  5. 5.Department of SurgeryUniversity at Buffalo School of Medicine and Biomedical SciencesBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations