Skip to main content

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

Surgical Endoscopy volume 30, pages 1713–1724 (2016)Cite this article

Abstract

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Hodge B, Thompson JF (1990) Noise pollution in the operating theatre. Lancet 335:891–894

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Shapiro RA, Berland T (1972) Noise in the operating room. N Engl J Med 287:1236–1238

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Healey AN, Sevdalis N, Vincent CA (2006) Measuring intra-operative interference from distraction and interruption observed in the operating theatre. Ergonomics 49:589–604

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. McDonald J, Orlick T, Letts M (1995) Mental readiness in surgeons and its links to performance excellence in surgery. J Pediat Orthop 15:691–697

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Sarker SK, Vincent C (2005) Errors in surgery. Int J Surg 3:75–81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 22:2171–2177

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wiegmann DA, Eggman AA, ElBardissi AW, Henrickson SE, Sundt TM (2010) Improving cardiac surgical care: a work systems approach. Appl Ergon 41:701–712

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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 6:377–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Rose DJ, Christina RW (2005) A Multilevel Approach to the Study of Motor Control and Learning, 2nd edn. Benjamin Cummings, Redwood City

    Google Scholar 

  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 22:196–201

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Van Selst MV, Ruthruff E, Johnston JC (1999) Can practice eliminate the psychological refractory period effect? J Exp Psychol 25:1268–1283

    Google Scholar 

  12. Pashler H, Johnston JC, Ruthruff E (2001) Attention and performance. Annu Rev Psychol 52:629–651

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Welford AT (1967) Single-channel operation in the brain. Acta Psychol 27:5–22

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  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 37:1517–1522

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Schneider W, Shriffin RM (1977) Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychol Rev 84:1–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 190:947–949

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Derossis AM, Bothwell J, Sigman HH, Fried GM (1998) The effect of practice on performance in a laparoscopic simulator. Surg Endosc 12:1117–1120

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 198:105–110

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 135:21–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 240:518–528

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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 2006

  22. Healey AN, Primus CP, Koutantji M (2007) Quantifying distraction and interruption in urological surgery. Qual Saf Health Care 16:135–139

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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 27:1161–1165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 25:437–443

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Sevdalis N, Healey AN, Vincent CA (2007) Distracting communications in the operating theatre. J Eval Clin Prac 13:390–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):751–758

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Szafranski C, Kahol K, Ghaemmaghami V, Smith M, Ferrara JJ (2009) Distractions and surgical proficiency: an educational perspective. Am J Surg 198:804–810

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 24:902–907

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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 147:107–113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 17:306–311

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 136:25–30

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 24:1347–1352

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 255:1190–1194

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Goodell KH, Cao CGL, Schwaitzberg SD (2006) Effects of cognitive distraction on performance of laparoscopic surgical tasks. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 15:94–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 147:1026–1030

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Wong SW, Smith R, Crowe P (2010) Optimizing the operating theatre environment. ANZ J Surg 80:917–924

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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).

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Systems, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, 1000 Hilltop Rd., Baltimore, MD, 21250, USA

    Helena M. Mentis

  2. Department of Computer Engineering, University of Evry, Évry, France

    Amine Chellali

  3. Department of Surgery, Cambridge Health Alliance, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Kelly Manser

  4. Department of Biomedical, Industrial and Human Factors Engineering, Wright State University, Dayton, OH, USA

    Caroline G. L. Cao

  5. Department of Surgery, University at Buffalo School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Buffalo, NY, USA

    Steven D. Schwaitzberg

Authors
  1. Helena M. Mentis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amine Chellali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kelly Manser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Caroline G. L. Cao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Steven D. Schwaitzberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helena M. Mentis.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mentis, H.M., Chellali, A., Manser, K. et al. A systematic review of the effect of distraction on surgeon performance: directions for operating room policy and surgical training. Surg Endosc 30, 1713–1724 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4443-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4443-z

Keywords

  • Distraction
  • Surgery
  • Safety
  • Performance