Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 181

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Identification of systems failures in successful paediatric cardiac surgery

Catchpole, K. R., Giddings, A. E. B., de Leval, M. R., Peek, G. J., Godden, P. J., Utley, M., Gallivan, S., Hirst, G., Dale, T.·2006·Ergonomics

Abstract

Patient safety will benefit from an approach to human error that examines systemic causes, rather than blames individuals. This study describes a direct observation methodology, based on a threat and error model, prospectively to identify types and sources of systems failures in paediatric cardiac surgery. Of substantive interest were the range, frequency and types of failures that could be identified and whether minor failures could accumulate to form more serious events, as has been the case in other industries. Check lists, notes and video recordings were employed to observe 24 successful operations. A total of 366 failures were recorded. Coordination and communication problems, equipment problems, a relaxed safety culture, patient-related problems and perfusion-related problems were most frequent, with a smaller number of skill, knowledge and decision-making failures. Longer and more risky operations were likely to generate a greater number of minor failures than shorter and lower risk operations, and in seven higher-risk cases frequently occurring minor failures accumulated to threaten the safety of the patient. Non-technical errors were more prevalent than technical errors and task threats were the most prevalent systemic source of error. Adverse events in surgery are likely to be associated with a number of recurring and prospectively identifiable errors. These may be co-incident and cumulative human errors predisposed by threats embedded in the system, rather than due to individual incompetence or negligence. Prospectively identifying and reducing these recurrent failures would lead to improved surgical standards and enhanced patient safety.

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 · 10.1080/00140130600568865

Cites

4 of 4 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

Cited by

See all 181

Metadata

Authors
Catchpole, K. R., Giddings, A. E. B., de Leval, M. R., Peek, G. J., Godden, P. J., Utley, M., Gallivan, S., Hirst, G., & Dale, T.
Venue
Ergonomics
Published
2006-04-15
Volume
49
Issue
5-6
Pages
567-588
ISSN
  • 0014-0139 (ISSN-L)
  • 1366-5847
OpenAlex
W2098896426
Cited by
181
References
4
FWCI
10.77
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

How to cite

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

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Identification of systems failures in successful paediatric cardiac surgery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/00140130600568865
The paper
Catchpole, K. R., Giddings, A. E. B., de Leval, M. R., Peek, G. J., Godden, P. J., Utley, M., Gallivan, S., Hirst, G., & Dale, T. (2006). Identification of systems failures in successful paediatric cardiac surgery. Ergonomics. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130600568865

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.