Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 212

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

Patterns of Technical Error Among Surgical Malpractice Claims: An Analysis of Strategies to Prevent Injury to Surgical Patients

Open access
Regenbogen, Scott E., Greenberg, Caprice C., Studdert, David M., Lipsitz, Stuart R., Zinner, Michael J., Gawande, Atul A.·2007·Annals of Surgery

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To identify the most prevalent patterns of technical errors in surgery, and evaluate commonly recommended interventions in light of these patterns. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The majority of surgical adverse events involve technical errors, but little is known about the nature and causes of these events. We examined characteristics of technical errors and common contributing factors among closed surgical malpractice claims. METHODS: Surgeon reviewers analyzed 444 randomly sampled surgical malpractice claims from four liability insurers. Among 258 claims in which injuries due to error were detected, 52% (n = 133) involved technical errors. These technical errors were further analyzed with a structured review instrument designed by qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Forty-nine percent of the technical errors caused permanent disability; an additional 16% resulted in death. Two-thirds (65%) of the technical errors were linked to manual error, 9% to errors in judgment, and 26% to both manual and judgment error. A minority of technical errors involved advanced procedures requiring special training ("index operations"; 16%), surgeons inexperienced with the task (14%), or poorly supervised residents (9%). The majority involved experienced surgeons (73%), and occurred in routine, rather than index, operations (84%). Patient-related complexities-including emergencies, difficult or unexpected anatomy, and previous surgery-contributed to 61% of technical errors, and technology or systems failures contributed to 21%. CONCLUSIONS: Most technical errors occur in routine operations with experienced surgeons, under conditions of increased patient complexity or systems failure. Commonly recommended interventions, including restricting high-complexity operations to experienced surgeons, additional training for inexperienced surgeons, and stricter supervision of trainees, are likely to address only a minority of technical errors. Surgical safety research should instead focus on improving decision-making and performance in routine operations for complex patients and circumstances.

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 · 10.1097/sla.0b013e31815865f8

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

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 212

Metadata

Authors
Regenbogen, S. E., Greenberg, C. C., Studdert, D. M., Lipsitz, S. R., Zinner, M. J., & Gawande, A. A.
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Published
2007-11
Volume
246
Issue
5
Pages
705-711
ISSN
0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2077516198
Cited by
212
References
4
FWCI
10.84
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 Technical Error Among Surgical Malpractice Claims: An Analysis of Strategies to Prevent Injury to Surgical Patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/sla.0b013e31815865f8
The paper
Regenbogen, S. E., Greenberg, C. C., Studdert, D. M., Lipsitz, S. R., Zinner, M. J., & Gawande, A. A. (2007). Patterns of Technical Error Among Surgical Malpractice Claims: An Analysis of Strategies to Prevent Injury to Surgical Patients. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e31815865f8

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.