Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The nature of surgical error A cautionary tale and a call to reason

  • Surgical errors section
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Errors and “patient safety” have taken on monumental importance for surgery. Like all things new, there is an initial over-reaction before a return to a balanced perspective. The current response to the global interest in error has been to seize on the latest reports that are focusing on the “systemic nature” of errors, which is also being referred to as “the new look.” There has been an unintentional ignoring of the actual error, referred to as the coface error, that the surgeon commits. It is time to put the approach to errors into perspective and redefine errors within the context of the surgical community, which can result in a balance of the surgeon’s position in regard to systemic and personal responsibility.

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

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Billings CE, Woods DD (2001) Human error in perspective. The patient safety movement. Postgrad Med 109: 13–17

    Google Scholar 

  2. Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM, Hebert1, Localio AR, Lawthers AG, Newhouse JP, Weiler PC, Hiatt HH (1991) Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I. N Engl J Med 324: 370–376

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS (eds) (1999) To err is human: building a safer health system. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  4. Reason JT (1990) Human error. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  5. Teasdale GM (2002) Council of the Society of British Neurological Surgeons. Learning from Bristol: report of the public inquiry into children’s heart surgery at Bristol Royal Infirmary 1984–1995. Br J Neurosurg 16: 211–216

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Woods DD, Cook RI (2003) Mistaking error. In: Hatlie MJ, Youngberg BJ (eds) Patient safety handbook Jones & Bartlett, Sudbury, MA

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA-DSO), 3701 Fairfax Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203, USA

    R. M. Satava

  2. Department of Surgery, University of Washington Medical Center, Box 356410, 1959 Northeast Pacific Street, Seattle, WA 19895, USA

    R. M. Satava

Authors
  1. R. M. Satava
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. M. Satava.

Additional information

The opinions or assertions contained herein are the private views of the author and are not to be construed as official, or as reflecting the views of the Department of the Army, Department of the Navy, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or the Department of Defense.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Satava, R.M. The nature of surgical error A cautionary tale and a call to reason. Surg Endosc 19, 1014–1016 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005-8108-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005-8108-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation