Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,082

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Analysis of errors reported by surgeons at three teaching hospitals

Open access
Gawande, Atul A., Zinner, Michael J., Studdert, David M., Brennan, Troyen A.·2003·Surgery

Abstract

BACKGROUND Little is known of the factors that underlie surgical errors. Incident reporting has been proposed as a method of obtaining information about medical errors to help identify such factors. METHODS Between November 1, 2000, and March 15, 2001, we conducted confidential interviews with randomly selected surgeons from three Massachusetts teaching hospitals to elicit detailed reports on surgical adverse events resulting from errors in management ("incidents"). Data on the characteristics of the incidents and the factors that surgeons reported to have contributed to the errors were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS Among 45 surgeons approached for interviews, 38 (84%) agreed to participate and provided reports on 146 incidents. Thirty-three percent of incidents resulted in permanent disability and 13% in patient death. Seventy-seven percent involved injuries related to an operation or other invasive intervention (visceral injuries, bleeding, and wound infection/dehiscence were the most common subtypes), 13% involved unnecessary or inappropriate procedures, and 10% involved unnecessary advancement of disease. Two thirds of the incidents involved errors during the intraoperative phase of surgical care, 27% during preoperative management, and 22% during postoperative management. Two or more clinicians were cited as substantially contributing to errors in 70% of the incidents. The most commonly cited systems factors contributing to errors were inexperience/lack of competence in a surgical task (53% of incidents), communication breakdowns among personnel (43%), and fatigue or excessive workload (33%). Surgeons reported significantly more systems failures in incidents involving emergency surgical care than those involving nonemergency care (P <.001). CONCLUSIONS Subjective incident reports gathered through interviews allow identification of characteristics of surgical errors and their leading contributing factors, which may help target research and interventions to reduce such errors.

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 · 10.1067/msy.2003.169

Cites

40 of 40 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 40 references

Cited by

See all 1,082

Metadata

Authors
Gawande, A. A., Zinner, M. J., Studdert, D. M., & Brennan, T. A.
Venue
Surgery
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-06
Volume
133
Issue
6
Pages
614-621
ISSN
0039-6060 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2115120145
Cited by
1,082
References
40
FWCI
17.17
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: Analysis of errors reported by surgeons at three teaching hospitals. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1067/msy.2003.169
The paper
Gawande, A. A., Zinner, M. J., Studdert, D. M., & Brennan, T. A. (2003). Analysis of errors reported by surgeons at three teaching hospitals. Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1067/msy.2003.169

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.