The DOI matches its Crossref record.
On error management: lessons from aviation
Open accessAbstract
Pilots and doctors operate in complex environments where teams interact with technology. In both domains, risk varies from low to high with threats coming from a variety of sources in the environment. Safety is paramount for both professions, but cost issues can influence the commitment of resources for safety efforts. Aircraft accidents are infrequent, highly visible, and often involve massive loss of life, resulting in exhaustive investigation into causal factors, public reports, and remedial action. Research by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration into aviation accidents has found that 70% involve human error.1 In contrast, medical adverse events happen to individual patients and seldom receive national publicity. More importantly, there is no standardised method of investigation, documentation, and dissemination. The US Institute of Medicine estimates that each year between 44 000 and 98 000 people die as a result of medical errors. When error is suspected, litigation and new regulations are threats in both medicine and aviation. #### Summary points In aviation, accidents are usually highly visible, and as a result aviation has developed standardised methods of investigating, documenting, and disseminating errors and their lessons Although operating theatres are not cockpits, medicine could learn from aviation Observation of flights in operation has identified failures of compliance, communication, procedures, proficiency, and decision making in contributing to errors Surveys in operating theatres have confirmed that pilots and doctors have common interpersonal problem areas and similarities in professional culture Accepting the inevitability of error and the importance of reliable data on error and its management will allow systematic efforts to reduce the frequency and severity of adverse events Error results from physiological and psychological limitations of humans.2 Causes of error include fatigue, workload, and fear as well as cognitive overload, poor interpersonal communications, imperfect information processing, and flawed decision making.3 In both aviation …
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
Cited by
Enhancing the Effectiveness of Work Groups and Teams
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x · Cited by 2,623
Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.413 · Cited by 2,385
Middleton, B., Bloomrosen, M., Dente, M. A., Hashmat, B., Koppel, R., Overhage, J. M., Payne, T. H., Rosenbloom, S. T., Weaver, C., & Zhang, J. (2013) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001458 · Cited by 618
Ethical Machine Learning in Healthcare
Chen, I. Y., Pierson, E., Rose, S., Joshi, S., Ferryman, K., & Ghassemi, M. (2021) · Annual Review of Biomedical Data Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-biodatasci-092820-114757 · Cited by 645
The role of non-technical skills in anaesthesia: a review of current literature
Fletcher, G. C. L., McGeorge, P., Flin, R. H., Glavin, R. J., & Maran, N. J. (2002) · British Journal of Anaesthesia · doi:10.1093/bja/88.3.418 · Cited by 423
Metadata
- Authors
- Helmreich, R. L.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2000-03-18
- Volume
- 320
- Issue
- 7237
- Pages
- 781-785
- ISSN
- 0959-8138 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2115801894
- Cited by
- 1,327
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 44.95
- 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: On error management: lessons from aviation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.320.7237.781
- The paper
- Helmreich, R. L. (2000). On error management: lessons from aviation. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7237.781
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.