Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Human Factors Psychology in Surgery

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation: Surgery and Surgical Subspecialties

Part of the book series: Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation ((CHS))

Abstract

Human factors is a field dedicated to studying how to improve work environments based on human capabilities and limitations. There are many areas where human factors can improve surgery, especially as surgery continues to evolve and new tools, technology, and techniques are developed. Simulation offers a safe and ideal environment to study, train, and assess the application of human factors principles to surgery. This chapter provides a brief overview and historical perspective of human factors and how human factors can be applied to surgery, specifically focusing on attention, mental workload, situation awareness, and stress.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Carayon P. Handbook of human factors and ergonomics in health care and patient safety. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Gilbreth FB. Bricklaying system. New York: Myron C. Clark; 1909.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Baumgart A, Neuhauser D. Frank and Lillian Gilbreth: scientific management in the operating room. Qual Saf Health Care. 2009;18:413–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mackworth NH. The breakdown of vigilance during prolonged visual search. Q J Ex Psychol. 1948;1:6–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hancock PA. In search of vigilance: the problem of iatrogenically created psychological phenomena. Am Psychol. 2013;68:97–109.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Safren MA, Chapanis A. A critical incident study of hospital medication errors. Hospitals. 1960;34:32–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Matern U. The laparoscopic surgeon’s posture. In: Bogner MS, editor. Misadventures in health care. Mahwah: Erlbaum; 2004. p. 75–88.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Scerbo MW. The future of medical training and the need for human factors. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society 49th annual meeting; 2005 Sep 26–30. Santa Monica: Human Factors & Ergonomics Society; 2005. p. 969–73.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Craig C, Klein MI, Griswold J, Gaitonde K, McGill T, Halldorsson A. Using cognitive task analysis to identify critical decisions in the laparoscopic environment. Hum Factors. 2012;54:1025–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dekker S. Patient safety: a human factors approach. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2011.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Stefanidis D, Anton N, McRary G, Howley LD, Pimentel M, Davis C, et al. Implementation results in a novel comprehensive mental skills curriculum during simulator training. Am J Surg. 2017;213:353–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Flin R, Youngson GG, Yule S. Enhancing surgical performance: a primer in non-technical skills. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hancock PA, Meshkati N. Human mental workload. North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kahneman D. Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall; 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Norman D, Bobrow D. On data-limited and resource-limited processing. J Cogn Psychol. 1975;7:44–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wickens CD. Processing resources in attention. In: Parasuraman R, Davies DR, editors. Varieties of attention. New York: Academic Press; 1984. p. 63–102.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Wickens CD. Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theor Issues Ergon. 2002;3:59–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. O'Donnell RD, Eggemeier FT. Workload assessment methodology. In: Boff K, Kaufman L, Thomas J, editors. Handbook of perception and human performance, vol. II: cognitive processes and performance, vol. 1986. England: John Wiley & Sons; 1986. p. 1–49.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cuschieri A. Visual displays and visual perception in minimal access surgery. Surg Innov. 1995;2:209–14.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Gallagher AG, Cowie R, Crothers I, Jordan-Black JA, Satava RM. An objective test of perceptual skill that predicts laparoscopic technical skill in three initial studies of laparoscopic performance. Surg Endosc. 2003;17:1468–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Carswell CM, Clarke D, Seales WB. Assessing mental workload during laparoscopic surgery. Surg Innov. 2005;12:80–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Gawron VJ. Human performance, workload, and situational awareness measures handbook. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2008.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  23. Hart SG, Staveland LE. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Hancock PA, Meshkati N, editors. Human mental workload. Amsterdam: North-Holland; 1988. p. 139–83.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Nygren TE. Psychometric properties of subjective workload measurement techniques: implications for their use in the assessment of perceived mental workload. Hum Factors. 1991;33:17–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Klein MI, Riley MA, Warm JS, Matthews G. Perceived mental workload in an endoscopic surgery simulator. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 49th Annual Meeting; 2005 Sep 26–30; Santa Monica, CA. Human Factors & Ergonomics Society; 2005. p. 1014–1018.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Yurko YY, Scerbo MW, Prabhu AS, Acker CE, Stefanidis D. Higher mental workload is associated with poorer laparoscopic performance as measured by the NASA-TLX tool. Simul Healthc. 2010;5:267–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Beatty J. Task-evoked pupillary responses, processing load, and the structure of processing resources. Psychol Bull. 1982;91:276–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Zheng B, Jiang X, Atkins MS. Detection of changes in surgical difficulty: evidence from pupil responses. Surg Innov. 2015;22:629–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Meshkati N. Heart rate variability and mental workload assessment. In: Hancock PA, Meshkati N, editors. Human mental workload. Amsterdam: North-Holland; 1988. p. 101–15.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Mulder G, Mulder LJ. Information processing and cardiovascular control. Psychophysiology. 1981;18:392–401.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Gevins AS, Smith ME. Neurophysiological measures of working memory and individual differences in cognitive ability and cognitive style. Cereb Cortex. 2000;10:829–39.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Scerbo MW, Freeman FG, Mikulka PJ. A brain-based system for adaptive automation. Theor Issues Ergon. 2003;4:200–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Fu S, Parasuraman R. Event-related potential (ERPs) in neuroergonomics. In: Parasuraman R, Rizzo M, editors. Neuroergonomics: the brain at work. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2008. p. 32–50.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Coles MGH, Rugg MD. Event-related brain potentials: an introduction. In: Rugg MD, Coles MGH, editors. Electrophysiology of the mind: event-related brain potentials and cognition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1995. p. 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Isreal JB, Chesney GL, Wickens CD, Donchin E. P300 and tracking difficulty: evidence for multiple resources in dual task performance. Psychophysiology. 1980;17:259–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Prinzel LJ, Freeman FG, Scerbo MW, Mikulka PJ, Pope AT. The effects of a psychophysiological system for adaptive automation on performance, workload, and the event-related potential P300 component. Hum Factors. 2003;45:601–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Wickens CD, Kramer A, Vanasse L, Donchin E. Performance of concurrent tasks: a psychological analysis of the reciprocity of information processing resources. Science. 1983;221:1080–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hsu KE, Man FY, 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. 2008;22:196–201.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Grant RC, Carswell CM, Lio CH, Seales B, Clarke D. Verbal time production as a secondary task: which metrics and target intervals are most sensitive to workload for fine motor laparoscopic training tasks? In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society 53rd annual meeting; 2009 Oct 19–23. Santa Monica: Human Factors & Ergonomics Society; 2009. p. 1191–5.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Stefanidis D, Scerbo MW, Korndorffer JR Jr, Scott DJ. Redefining simulator proficiency using automaticity theory. Am J Surg. 2007;193:502–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Stefanidis D, Scerbo MW, Sechrist C, Mostafavi A, Heniford BT. Do novices display automaticity during simulator training? Am J Surg. 2008;195:210–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Stefanidis D, Scerbo MW, Smith W, Acker CE, Montero PN. Simulator training to automaticity leads to improved skill transfer compared with traditional proficiency-based training: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2012;255:30–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Scerbo MW, Stefanidis D, Britt RC, Davis SS. A spatial task for measuring laparoscopic mental workload. Simul Healthc. 2012;7:558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Scerbo MW, Kennedy RA, Montano M, Britt RC, Davis SS, Stefanidis D. A spatial secondary task for measuring laparoscopic mental workload: differences in surgical experience. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society 57th annual meeting; 2013 Oct 27–31. Santa Monica: Human Factors & Ergonomics Society; 2013. p. 728–32.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Scerbo MW, Britt RC, Montano M, Kennedy RA, Prytz E, Stefanidis D. The effects of a retention interval and refresher session on intracorporeal suturing and knot tying skill and mental workload. Surgery. 2017;161:1209–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Britt RC, Scerbo MW, Montano M, Kennedy RA, Prytz E, Stefanidis D. Intracorporeal suturing: transfer from fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery to cadavers results in substantial increase in mental workload. Surgery. 2015;158:1428–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Endsley MR. Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum Factors. 1995;37:32–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Endsley MR. Situation awareness misconceptions and misunderstandings. J Cogn Eng Decis Mak. 2015;9:4–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Chiappe DL, Strybel TZ, Vu KPL. Mechanisms for the acquisition of situation awareness in situated agents. Theor Issues Ergon. 2011;13:625–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Klein GA, Moon B, Hoffman RT. Making sense of sensemaking 2: a macrocognitive model. IEEE Intell Syst. 2006;21:88–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Salmon P, Stanton N, Walker G, Green D. Situation awareness measurement: a review of applicability for C4i environments. Appl Ergon. 2006;37:225–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Stanton NA, Chambers PRG, Piggott J. Situational awareness and safety. Saf Sci. 2001;39:189–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Salmon PM, Stanton NA, Jenkins DP, Walker GH, Young MS, Aujila A. What really is going on? Review, critique and extension of situation awareness theory. In: International conference on engineering psychology and cognitive ergonomics; 2007 July; Berlin. Heidelberg: Springer; 2007. p. 407–16.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Smith K, Hancock PA. Situation awareness is adaptive, externally directed consciousness. Hum Factors. 1995;37:137–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Bedny G, Meister D. Theory of activity and situation awareness. Int J Cogn Ergon. 1999;3:63–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Salmon PM, Stanton NA, Walker GH, Jenkins D, Ladva D, Rafferty L, et al. Measuring situation awareness in complex systems: comparison of measures study. Int J Ind Ergon. 2009;39:490–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Salmon PM, Stanton NA, Walker GH, Baber C, Jenkins DP, McMaster R, et al. What is really going on? Review of situation awareness models for individuals and teams. Theor Issues Ergon Sci. 2008;9:297–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Salas E, Prince C, Baker DP, Shrestha L. Situation awareness in team performance: implications for measurement and training. Hum Factors. 1995;37:123–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Endsley MR. Final reflections: situation awareness models and measures. J Cogn Eng Decis Mak. 2015;9:101–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Wright MC, Taekman JM, Endsley MR. Objective measures of situation awareness in a simulated medical environment. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004;13:i65–71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Endsley MR. Theoretical underpinnings of situation awareness: a critical review. In: Endsley MR, Garland DJ, editors. Situation awareness analysis and measurement. Malwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2000. p. 3–32.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Endsley MR. Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum Factors. 1995;37:65–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Endsley MR. Direct measurement of situation awareness: validity and use of SAGAT. In: Endsley MR, Garland DJ, editors. Situation awareness analysis and measurement. Malwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2000. p. 147–73.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Gardner AK, Kosemund M, Martinez J. Examining the feasibility and predictive validity of the SAGAT tool to assess situation awareness among medical trainees. Simul Healthc. 2017;12:17–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Durso FT, Hackworth CA, Truitt TR, Crutchfield J, Nikolic D, Manning CA. Situation awareness as a predictor of performance for en route air traffic controllers. ATC Quart. 1998;6:1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Pierce RS. The effect of SPAM administration during a dynamic simulation. Hum Factors. 2012;54:838–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Taylor RM. Situational Awareness Rating Technique (SART): the development of a tool for aircrew systems design. 1990. AGARD, Situational Awareness in Aerospace Operations 17 p(SEE N 90-28972 23-53).

    Google Scholar 

  68. Endsley MR, Selcon SJ, Hardiman TD, Croft DG. A comparative analysis of SAGAT and SART for evaluations of situation awareness. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting; 1998 Oct 5–9; Chicago, IL. Human Factors & Ergonomics Society; 1998. p. 82–86.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Mishra A, Catchpole K, McCulloch P. The Oxford NOTECHS system: reliability and validity of a tool for measuring teamwork behaviour in the operating theatre. Qual Saf Health Care. 2009;18:104–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Sevdalis N, Davis R, Koutantji M, Undre S, Darzi A, Vincent CA. Reliability of a revised NOTECHS scale for use in surgical teams. Am J Surg. 2008;196:184–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Yule S, Flin R, Maran N, Rowley D, Youngson G, Patterson-Brown S. Surgeons’ non-technical skills in the operating room: reliability testing of the NOTSS behavior rating system. World J Surg. 2008;32:548–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Yule S, Rowley D, Flin R, Maran N, Youngson G, Duncan J, et al. Experience matters: comparing novice and expert ratings of non-technical skills using the NOTSS system. ANZ J Surg. 2009;79:154–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Hull L, Arora S, Kassab E, Kneebone R, Sevdalis N. Observational teamwork assessment for surgery: content validation and tool refinement. J Am Coll Surg. 2011;212:234–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Tien G, Atkins MS, Zheng B, Swindells C. Measuring situation awareness of surgeons in laparoscopic training. In: Proceedings of the 2010 symposium on eye-Tracking Research & Applications; 2010 Mar 22–24; Austin, TX. 2010. p. 149–152.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Graafland M, Schraagen JMC, Boermeester MA, Bemelman WA, Schijven MP. Training situational awareness to reduce surgical errors in the operating room. Brit J Surg. 2015;102:16–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Chang LA, Dym AA, Venegas-Borsellino C, Bangar M, Kazzi M, Lisenenkov D, et al. Comparison between simulation-based training and lecture-based education in teaching situation awareness. A randomized controlled study. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2017;14:529–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Wetzel CM, Kneebone RL, Woloshynowych M, Nestel D, Moorthy K, Kidd J, et al. The effects of stress on surgical performance. Am J Surg. 2006;191:5–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Arora S, Sevdalis N, Nestel D, Tierney T, Woloshynowych M, Kneebone R. Managing intraoperative stress: what do surgeons want from a crisis training program? Am J Surg. 2009;197:537–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Arora S, Sevdalis N, Nestel D, Woloshynowych M, Darzi A, Kneebone R. The impact of stress on surgical performance: a systematic review of the literature. Surgery. 2010;147:318–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Arora S, Tierney T, Sevdalis N, Aggarwal R, Nestel D, Woloshynowych M, et al. The Imperial Stress Assessment Tool (ISAT): a feasible, reliable and valid approach to measuring stress in the operating room. World J Surg. 2010;34:1756–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Maher Z, Milner R, Cripe J, Gaughan J, Fish J, Goldberg AJ. Stress training for the surgical resident. Am J Surg. 2013;205:169–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Clough BA, March S, Chan RJ, Casey LM, Phillips R, Ireland MJ. Psychosocial interventions for managing occupational stress and burnout among medical doctors: a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2017;6:144.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Balch CM, Freischlag JA, Shanafelt TD. Stress and burnout among surgeons. Understanding and managing the syndrome and avoiding the consequences. Arch Surg. 2009;144:371–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Aitchison LP, Cui CK, Arnold A, Nesbitt-Hawes E, Abbott J. The ergonomics of laparoscopic surgery: a quantitative study of the time and motion of laparoscopic surgeons in live surgical environments. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:5068–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Miller K, Benden M, Pickens A, Shipp E, Zheng Q. Ergonomics principles associated with laparoscopic surgeon injury/illness. Hum Factors. 2012;54:1087–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Shepherd JM, Harilingam MR, Hamade A. Ergonomics in laparoscopic surgery—a survey of symptoms and contributing factors. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2016;26:72–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Everly GS, Lating JM. The concept of stress. In: Everly GS, Lating JM, editors. A clinical guide to the treatment of the human stress response. New York: Springer; 2013. p. 3–15.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  88. Salas E, Driskell JE, Hughes S. The study of stress and human performance. Stress and human performance. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 1996. p. 1–45.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Lazarus RS, Folkman S. Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer Publishing Company; 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Wickens CD, Hollands JG, Banbury S, Parasuraman R. Mental workload, stress, and individual differences: cognitive and neuroergonomic perspectives. Engineering psychology and human performance. 4th ed. New York: Taylor & Francis; 2013. p. 346–76.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Arora S, Hull L, Sevdalis N, Tierney T, Nestel D, Woloshynowych M, et al. Factors compromising safety in surgery: stressful events in the operating room. Am J Surg. 2010;199:60–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Klein MI, Warm JS, Riley MA, Matthews G, Doarn C, Donovan JF, et al. Mental workload and stress perceived by novice operators in the laparoscopic and robotic minimally invasive surgical interfaces. J Endourol. 2012;26:1089–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Matthews G, Szalma J, Panganiban AR, Neubauer C, Warm JS. Profiling task stress with the Dundee stress state questionnaire. In: Cavalcanti L, Azevedo S, editors. Psychology of stress: new research. Hauppauge: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.; 2013. p. 49–90.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Matthews G, Joyner L, Gilliland K, Campbell S, Falconer S, Huggins J. Validation of a comprehensive stress state questionnaire: towards a state “big three”? Pers Psychol Eur. 1999;7:335–50.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Klein MI, Warm JS, Riley MA, Matthews G, Gaitonade K, Donovan JF. Perceptual distortions produce multidimensional stress profiles in novice users of an endoscopic surgery simulator. Hum Factors. 2008;50:291–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Klein MI, Mouraviev V, Craig C, Salamone L, Plerhoples TA, Wren SM, et al. Mental stress experienced by first-year residents and expert surgeons with robotic and laparoscopic surgery interfaces. J Robot Surg. 2014;8:149–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Helton WS. Validation of a short stress state questionnaire. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48th Annual Meeting; 2004 Sep 20–24; Santa Monica, CA. Human Factors & Ergonomics Society; 2004. p. 1238–1242.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Helton WS, Näswall K. Short stress state questionnaire. Factor structure and state change assessment. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2015;31:20–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Spielberger CD, Gorsuch RL, Lushene RE. Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologist Press; 1970. p. 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Marteau TM, Bekker H. The development of a six-item short-form of the state scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Brit J Clin Psychol. 1992;31:301–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Wheelock A, Suliman A, Wharton R, Babu ED, Hull L, Vincent C, et al. The impact of operating room distractions on stress, workload, and teamwork. Ann Surg. 2015;261:1079–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Flinn JT, Miller A, Pyatka N, Brewer J, Schneider T, Cao CGL. The effect of stress on learning in surgical skill acquisition. Med Teach. 2016;38:897–903.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Kalat JW. Biological psychology. Wadsworth/Thomson Learning: Belmont; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Jones KI, Amawi F, Bhalla A, Peacock O, Williams JP, Lundt JN. Assessing surgeon stress when operating using heart rate variability and the states trait anxiety inventory: will surgery be the death of us? Color Dis. 2014;17:335–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Everly GS, Lating JM. The anatomy and physiology of the human stress response. In: Everly GS, Lating JM, editors. A clinical guide to the treatment of the human stress response. New York: Springer; 2013. p. 17–51.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  106. Arora S, Sevdalis N, Aggarwal R, Sirimanna P, Darzi A, Kneebone R. Stress impairs psychomotor performance in novice laparoscopic surgeons. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:2588–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Wetzel CM, Black SA, Hanna GB, Athanasiou T, Kneebone RL, Nestel D, et al. The effects of stress and coping on surgical performance during simulations. Ann Surg. 2010;251:171–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Engelman C, Schneider M, Kirschbaum C, Grote G, Dingemann J, Schoof S, et al. Effects of intraoperative breaks on mental and somatic operator fatigue: a randomized clinical trial. Surg Endosc. 2011;25:1245–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Anton NE, Bean EA, Hammonds SC, Stefanidis D. Application of mental skills training in surgery: a review of its effectiveness and proposed next steps. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2017;27:459–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Anton NE, Howley LD, Pimentel M, Davis CK, Brown C, Stefanidis D. Effectiveness of a mental skills curriculum to reduce novices’ stress. J Surg Res. 2016;206:199–205.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Anton NE, Stefanidis D. Should surgeons have mental skills training? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016;50:1–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Anton NE, Mulji N, Howley LD, Yurco AM, Tobben D, Bean E, et al. Effects of a novel mental skills curriculum on surgical novices’ attention. J Surg Res. 2017;219:86–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Anton NE, Howley LD, Davis CK, Brown C, Stefanidis D. Minimizing deterioration of simulator-acquired skills during transfer to the operating room: a novel approach. Curr Surg Rep. 2017;5:16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Stefanidis D, Anton NE, Howley LD, Bean E, Yurco A, Pimentel ME, et al. Effectiveness of a comprehensive mental skills curriculum in enhancing surgical performance: results of a randomized controlled trial. Am J Surg. 2017;213:318–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Andreatta PB, Hillard M, Krain LP. The impact of stress factors in simulation-based laparoscopic training. Surgery. 2010;147:631–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Driskell JE, Johnston JH, Salas E. Does stress training generalize to novel settings? Hum Factors. 2001;43:99–110.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Baker BG, Bhalla A, Doleman B, Yarnold E, Simons S, Lund JN, et al. Simulation fails to replicate stress in trainees performing a technical procedure in the clinical environment. Med Teach. 2017;39:53–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. LeBlanc VR. The effects of acute stress on performance: implications for health professions education. Acad Med. 2009;84:S25–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Atrium Health, Carolinas Simulation Center, Charlotte, NC, USA

    Brittany L. Anderson-Montoya

  2. Department of Psychology, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA

    Mark W. Scerbo

Authors
  1. Brittany L. Anderson-Montoya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark W. Scerbo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brittany L. Anderson-Montoya .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Vice Chair of Education, Department of Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA

    Dimitrios Stefanidis

  2. Vice Chair of Education, Department of Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    James R. Korndorffer Jr.

  3. Executive Director WISH and CREST, Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Robert Sweet

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Anderson-Montoya, B.L., Scerbo, M.W. (2019). Human Factors Psychology in Surgery. In: Stefanidis, D., Korndorffer Jr., J., Sweet, R. (eds) Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation: Surgery and Surgical Subspecialties. Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98276-2_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98276-2_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-98275-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-98276-2

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation