The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Impact and Implications of Disruptive Behavior in the Perioperative Arena
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a growing concern about the role of human factor issues and their effect on patient safety and clinical outcomes of care. Problems with disruptive behaviors negatively affect communication flow and team dynamics, which can lead to adverse events and poor quality outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: A 25-question survey tool was used to assess the status and significance of disruptive behaviors around perioperative services in a large metropolitan academic medical center. Results were analyzed and compared with those from a national databank to identify areas of concern and opportunities for improvement. RESULTS: Disruptive behaviors were a common occurrence in the perioperative setting. These types of behaviors were most prevalent in attending surgeons. Disruptive behaviors increased levels of stress and frustration, which impaired concentration, impeded communication flow, and adversely affected staff relationships and team collaboration. These events were perceived to increase the likelihood of medical errors and adverse events and to compromise patient safety and quality of care. CONCLUSIONS: Disruptive behaviors in the perioperative arena have a significant impact on team dynamics and communication flow, which can have a negative impact on patient care. Organizations need to recognize the prevalence and significance of disruptive behaviors and develop policies and processes to address the issue. Key areas of focus include recognition and awareness, organizational and cultural commitment, implementation of appropriate codes of behavior policies and procedures, and provision of education and training programs to discuss contributing factors and tools to build effective communication and team collaboration skills.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Communication Failures: An Insidious Contributor to Medical Mishaps
Sutcliffe, K. M., Lewton, E., & Rosenthal, M. M. (2004) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-200402000-00019 · Cited by 1,069
Cited by
Abusive Supervision in Work Organizations: Review, Synthesis, and Research Agenda
Tepper, B. J. (2007) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206307300812 · Cited by 1,698
Prevalence of Burnout in Medical and Surgical Residents: A Meta-Analysis
Low, Z. X., Yeo, K. A., Sharma, V. K., Leung, G. K., McIntyre, R. S., Guerrero, A., Lu, B., Sin Fai Lam, C. C., Tran, B. X., Nguyen, L. H., et al. (2019) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph16091479 · Cited by 415
“Burnout is a precipitating factor for depression [12] and substance abuse [13] among medical professionals.”
Incidence and Factors Associated with Burnout in Anesthesiology: A Systematic Review
Sanfilippo, F., Noto, A., Foresta, G., Santonocito, C., Palumbo, G. J., Arcadipane, A., Maybauer, D. M., & Maybauer, M. O. (2017) · BioMed Research International · doi:10.1155/2017/8648925 · Cited by 167
Prevalence of delayed clinician response to elevated prostate-specific antigen values
Nepple, K. G., Joudi, F. N., Hillis, S. L., & Wahls, T. L. (2008) · Mayo Clinic Proceedings · doi:10.4065/83.4.439 · Cited by 22
Brooks, J. V., & Bosk, C. L. (2013) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.11.003 · Cited by 10
Metadata
- Authors
- Rosenstein, A. H., & O'Daniel, M.
- Venue
- Journal of the American College of Surgeons
- Published
- 2006-07
- Volume
- 203
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 96-105
- ISSN
- 1072-7515 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2038203281
- Cited by
- 271
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 15.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.