Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 857

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Patterns of Communication Breakdowns Resulting in Injury to Surgical Patients

Open access
Greenberg, Caprice C., Regenbogen, Scott E., Studdert, David M., Lipsitz, Stuart R., Rogers, Selwyn O., Zinner, Michael J., Gawande, Atul A.·2007·Journal of the American College of Surgeons

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Communication breakdowns are a common threat to surgical safety, but there are little data to guide initiatives to improve communication. STUDY DESIGN: In surgeon-review of 444 surgical malpractice claims from 4 liability insurers, we identified 60 cases involving communication breakdowns resulting in harm to patients. Two surgeon-reviewers analyzed these cases to identify common characteristics and associated factors. Based on identified patterns, potential interventions to prevent communication breakdowns were developed and their potential impact was assessed. RESULTS: The 60 cases involved 81 communication breakdowns, occurring in the preoperative (38%), intraoperative (30%), and postoperative periods (32%). Seventy-two percent of cases involved one communication breakdown. The majority of breakdowns were verbal communications (92%) involving 1 transmitter and 1 receiver (64%). Attending surgeons were the most common team member involved. Status asymmetry (74%) and ambiguity about responsibilities (73%) were commonly associated factors. Forty-three percent of communication breakdowns occurred with handoffs and 39% with transfers in the patient's location. The most common communication breakdowns involved residents failing to notify the attending surgeon of critical events and a failure of attending-to-attending handoffs. Proposed interventions could prevent 45% to 73% of communication breakdowns in this cases series. CONCLUSIONS: Serious communication breakdowns occur across the continuum of care, typically result from a failure in verbal communication between a surgical attending and another caregiver, and often involve ambiguity about responsibilities. Interventions to prevent these breakdowns should involve: defined triggers that mandate communication with an attending surgeon; structured handoffs and transfer protocols; and standard use of read-backs.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.01.010

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 857

Metadata

Authors
Greenberg, C. C., Regenbogen, S. E., Studdert, D. M., Lipsitz, S. R., Rogers, S. O., Zinner, M. J., & Gawande, A. A.
Venue
Journal of the American College of Surgeons
Published
2007-04
Volume
204
Issue
4
Pages
533-540
ISSN
1072-7515 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2115578013
Cited by
857
References
1
FWCI
49.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Patterns of Communication Breakdowns Resulting in Injury to Surgical Patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.01.010
The paper
Greenberg, C. C., Regenbogen, S. E., Studdert, D. M., Lipsitz, S. R., Rogers, S. O., Zinner, M. J., & Gawande, A. A. (2007). Patterns of Communication Breakdowns Resulting in Injury to Surgical Patients. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.01.010

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.