The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Error, stress, and teamwork in medicine and aviation: cross sectional surveys
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVES: To survey operating theatre and intensive care unit staff about attitudes concerning error, stress, and teamwork and to compare these attitudes with those of airline cockpit crew. DESIGN: : Cross sectional surveys. SETTING: : Urban teaching and non-teaching hospitals in the United States, Israel, Germany, Switzerland, and Italy. Major airlines around the world. PARTICIPANTS: : 1033 doctors, nurses, fellows, and residents working in operating theatres and intensive care units and over 30 000 cockpit crew members (captains, first officers, and second officers). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: : Perceptions of error, stress, and teamwork. RESULTS: : Pilots were least likely to deny the effects of fatigue on performance (26% v 70% of consultant surgeons and 47% of consultant anaesthetists). Most pilots (97%) and intensive care staff (94%) rejected steep hierarchies (in which senior team members are not open to input from junior members), but only 55% of consultant surgeons rejected such hierarchies. High levels of teamwork with consultant surgeons were reported by 73% of surgical residents, 64% of consultant surgeons, 39% of anaesthesia consultants, 28% of surgical nurses, 25% of anaesthetic nurses, and 10% of anaesthetic residents. Only a third of staff reported that errors are handled appropriately at their hospital. A third of intensive care staff did not acknowledge that they make errors. Over half of intensive care staff reported that they find it difficult to discuss mistakes. CONCLUSIONS: Medical staff reported that error is important but difficult to discuss and not handled well in their hospital. Barriers to discussing error are more important since medical staff seem to deny the effect of stress and fatigue on performance. Further problems include differing perceptions of teamwork among team members and reluctance of senior theatre staff to accept input from junior members.
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
The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior
Easterbrook, J. A. (1959) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0047707 · Cited by 3,090
Cited by
Work system design for patient safety: the SEIPS model
Carayon, P., Schoofs Hundt, A., Karsh, B.-T., Gurses, A. P., Alvarado, C. J., Smith, M., & Flatley Brennan, P. (2006) · Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qshc.2005.015842 · Cited by 1,795
Teamwork and patient safety in dynamic domains of healthcare: A review of the literature
MANSER, T. (2009) · Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · doi:10.1111/j.1399-6576.2008.01717.x · Cited by 1,322
Emergence of the Human Capital Resource: A Multilevel Model
Ployhart, R. E., & Moliterno, T. P. (2011) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2009.0318 · Cited by 1,162
Solet, D. J., Norvell, J. M., Rutan, G. H., & Frankel, R. M. (2005) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-200512000-00005 · Cited by 531
A 36-hospital time and motion study: how do medical-surgical nurses spend their time?
Hendrich, A., Chow, M. P., Skierczynski, B. A., & Lu, Z. (2008) · The Permanente Journal · doi:10.7812/tpp/08-021 · Cited by 530
Metadata
- Authors
- Sexton, J. B.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2000-03-18
- Volume
- 320
- Issue
- 7237
- Pages
- 745-749
- ISSN
- 0959-8138 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2097875399
- Cited by
- 1,611
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 48.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Error, stress, and teamwork in medicine and aviation: cross sectional surveys. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.320.7237.745
- The paper
- Sexton, J. B. (2000). Error, stress, and teamwork in medicine and aviation: cross sectional surveys. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7237.745
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.