The DOI matches its OpenAlex record.
Communication failures in the operating room: an observational classification of recurrent types and effects
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Ineffective team communication is frequently at the root of medical error. The objective of this study was to describe the characteristics of communication failures in the operating room (OR) and to classify their effects. This study was part of a larger project to develop a team checklist to improve communication in the OR. METHODS: Trained observers recorded 90 hours of observation during 48 surgical procedures. Ninety four team members participated from anesthesia (16 staff, 6 fellows, 3 residents), surgery (14 staff, 8 fellows, 13 residents, 3 clerks), and nursing (31 staff). Field notes recording procedurally relevant communication events were analysed using a framework which considered the content, audience, purpose, and occasion of a communication exchange. A communication failure was defined as an event that was flawed in one or more of these dimensions. RESULTS: 421 communication events were noted, of which 129 were categorized as communication failures. Failure types included "occasion" (45.7% of instances) where timing was poor; "content" (35.7%) where information was missing or inaccurate, "purpose" (24.0%) where issues were not resolved, and "audience" (20.9%) where key individuals were excluded. 36.4% of failures resulted in visible effects on system processes including inefficiency, team tension, resource waste, workaround, delay, patient inconvenience and procedural error. CONCLUSION: Communication failures in the OR exhibited a common set of problems. They occurred in approximately 30% of team exchanges and a third of these resulted in effects which jeopardized patient safety by increasing cognitive load, interrupting routine, and increasing tension in the OR.
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
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
Teamwork in healthcare: Key discoveries enabling safer, high-quality care.
Rosen, M. A., DiazGranados, D., Dietz, A. S., Benishek, L. E., Thompson, D., Pronovost, P. J., & Weaver, S. J. (2018) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/amp0000298 · Cited by 1,283
Marlow, S. L., Lacerenza, C. N., Paoletti, J., Burke, C. S., & Salas, E. (2018) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.08.001 · Cited by 346
Clinical Review: Checklists—Translating Evidence into Practice
Winters, B. D., Gurses, A. P., Lehmann, H., Sexton, J. B., Rampersad, C., & Pronovost, P. J. (2009) · Critical Care · doi:10.1186/cc7792 · Cited by 348
Failures in communication and information transfer across the surgical care pathway: interview study
Nagpal, K., Arora, S., Vats, A., Wong, H. W., Sevdalis, N., Vincent, C., & Moorthy, K. (2012) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2012-000886 · Cited by 147
Metadata
- Authors
- Lingard, L. A.
- Venue
- BMJ Quality & Safety
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2004-10-01
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 330-334
- ISSN
- 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2138990761
- Cited by
- 1,406
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 39.03
- 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: Communication failures in the operating room: an observational classification of recurrent types and effects. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/qhc.13.5.330
- The paper
- Lingard, L. A. (2004). Communication failures in the operating room: an observational classification of recurrent types and effects. BMJ Quality & Safety. https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.13.5.330
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.