Skip to main content
Download PDF

Operating room organization and surgical performance: a systematic review

Patient Safety in Surgery volume 18, Article number: 5 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Organizational factors may influence surgical outcomes, regardless of extensively studied factors such as patient preoperative risk and surgical complexity. This study was designed to explore how operating room organization determines surgical performance and to identify gaps in the literature that necessitate further investigation.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review according to PRISMA guidelines to identify original studies in Pubmed and Scopus from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2019. Studies evaluating the association between five determinants (team composition, stability, teamwork, work scheduling, disturbing elements) and three outcomes (operative time, patient safety, costs) were included. Methodology was assessed based on criteria such as multicentric investigation, accurate population description, and study design.

Results

Out of 2625 studies, 76 met inclusion criteria. Of these, 34 (44.7%) investigated surgical team composition, 15 (19.7%) team stability, 11 (14.5%) teamwork, 9 (11.8%) scheduling, and 7 (9.2%) examined the occurrence of disturbing elements in the operating room. The participation of surgical residents appeared to impact patient outcomes. Employing specialized and stable teams in dedicated operating rooms showed improvements in outcomes. Optimization of teamwork reduced operative time, while poor teamwork increased morbidity and costs. Disturbances and communication failures in the operating room negatively affected operative time and surgical safety.

Conclusion

While limited, existing scientific evidence suggests that operating room staffing and environment significantly influences patient outcomes. Prioritizing further research on these organizational drivers is key to enhancing surgical performance.

Introduction

The success of a surgical procedure is not solely determined by the specific surgical intervention itself or patient-related factors, but rather relies on the comprehensive quality of care provided to the patient during their hospital stay [1]. This encompasses the combined efforts of numerous healthcare professionals involved in the patient's treatment, whose individual performances are intricately influenced by the environment in which they operate [2]. Therefore, the outcome of surgery appears multifaceted and could be related to the collaborative synergy and environmental factors that impact the overall delivery of care [1, 2]. While risk factor identification for surgical complications has traditionally focused on patient comorbidities and the surgical procedure itself, postoperative complications may also depend on the organization of the operating room. Previous investigations have highlighted the significance of team interaction and team learning curves in this context [3,4,5]. Other studies have examined determinants such as teamwork, measured using teamwork assessment scales, and intraoperative failures [6, 7], team communication [8, 9], resident participation [1, 10,11,12], music listening [13,14,15], task interruptions [16], and organizational parameters [17]. However, those studies to date are based on qualitative approaches with narrow scope, focusing on specific procedures or outcomes.

A comprehensive understanding of the relationship between organizational factors and surgical outcomes remains elusive due to the absence of syntheses in this broad and heterogeneous field. Existing reviews have not adequately covered the range of determinants and outcomes beyond the patient and the surgical procedure, and they are often descriptive or focused on only one determinant, without any general overview of the complex interactions that can occur between the determinants. To address this lack of synthesis of this broad field and to identify research gaps, we conducted a systematic review, based on available quantitative studies, to explore the influence of organizational factors in the operating room on surgical performance and patient outcomes.

Methods

Search strategy

A preliminary search was conducted to identify articles that aligned with the research theme and develop a comprehensive search strategy. This preliminary search lead to determine five major organizational factors categories and three main clinically significant surgical outcomes, as follows: 1) Team composition, 2) Team stability, 3) Team work, 4) Work scheduling, 5) Disturbing elements. Surgical outcomes were categorized as follows: 1) Operative time, 2) Surgical safety, 3) Economic resource consumption. The databases used for the study included PubMed and Scopus, and the search algorithm was adapted for each database. The full research algorithms used for each database are outlined in Additional file 1: Appendix I. The reference list of included articles and any relevant systematic reviews were also checked for additional studies. Studies published in English from January 1st, 2000 were considered for inclusion. Eligible studies included those from any geographical location, that involved professional surgeons or surgical trainees (such as fellows or residents), regardless of their specialty. Only quantitative studies based on original research investigation were considered while qualitative studies were disregarded, as well as systematic reviews, comments, and opinion papers. Both observational (cross-sectional and longitudinal designs) and interventional (quasi-experimental designs and randomized experimental designs) studies were considered for inclusion. The included studies focused on measuring and assessing the association between organizational factors in the operating room and surgical performance. Only studies based on real surgical procedures performed inside the operating room were considered, as opposed to simulated interventions or simulation training conducted outside the operating room. Studies were screened according to the five determinants and three identified outcomes. All identified citations were collated and uploaded into Endnote bibliographic software and duplicates were removed. Titles and abstracts were screened for selection by two independent reviewers (AP and SD) for assessment against the review’s inclusion criteria. The full texts of selected citations were then retrieved and assessed in detail against the inclusion criteria by the same two independent reviewers. Reasons for exclusion of sources of evidence at full text that did not meet the inclusion criteria were recorded and reported. Any discrepancy between the two reviewers during the selection process was resolved through agreement or with an additional reviewer (AD) if no consensus was found. The results of the citation screening and the study inclusion process was fully reported in the final systematic review and presented in a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping review (PRISMA- ScR) flow diagram [18].

Data extraction

Data were systematically collected from studies included in the systematic review using a previously developed extraction tool (see Additional file 2: Appendix II). The data extracted included specific details about the study methods and findings relevant to the review questions (see Additional file 2: Appendix II). As definitions of organizational factors are different from one publication to another, we grouped and categorized organizational factors investigated in selected studies into five categories, as follows: 1) team composition: number of participants (surgeons, residents, anesthetists, nurses) during surgery, level of experience of participants, and surgical team relationship (supervised work, involvement of residents, surgeon/resident-nurse-anesthetist relations). 2) team stability: number of former collaborations (surgeon/resident, surgeon/anesthetist, surgeon/nurse), turnover of the surgical and anesthetic team between procedures or during a same procedure. 3) team work: scales measuring teamwork, leadership, communication inside of the team, including communication failure. Teamwork in the operating room refers to the coordinated and collaborative efforts of multidisciplinary healthcare professionals working together seamlessly to achieve optimal patient outcomes 4) work scheduling: patient order, or modifications in the scheduling of surgical procedures, dedicated operating rooms, patient turn over, work overlay. 5) disturbing elements: number of disturbing elements during surgical the procedure, type or duration of disturbance.

Surgical outcomes were categorized as follows: 1) operative time, 2) surgical safety (i.e. morbidity, mortality, redo surgery, readmission), 3) economic resource consumption (i.e. cost and length of stay).

Data analysis

The quality of the studies was assessed in a standardized manner by assigning a quality score based on the presence or absence of three methodological criteria: detailed description of the size of the patient population and the number of participating healthcare professionals, multicenter (i.e. more than one center or hospital) study setting, and longitudinal or randomized study design. One point was attributed for each criterion present.

Data analysis involved a review and classification of various aspects of the organizational factors, including the study setting, objectives, outcomes, determining factors, study design, statistics, and results. For quantitative variables, when the outcome was found in several studies, the median value was calculated. When statistical analysis was carried out in the included manuscripts and multiple results were obtained, the median value was calculated. The statistically significant results were used to differentiate between positive and negative studies. If statistical analysis was not performed or not significant, the results were classified in the section for neutral studies. The data was presented graphically when appropriate, following appropriate guidelines for systematic reviews [19].

This systematic review was carried out in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and the methodology for scoping reviews further outlined by Arkset and O’Malley [20,21,22]. The Protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF) with the following: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/WBF9S.

Results

Of 2625 identified references, 220 abstracts were deemed potentially suitable. After a thorough evaluation of the full text, 76 articles were selected. According to our search strategy, the inter-rater agreement kappa was 0.78 for title and abstract screening; and 0.87 for full texts screening. The PRISMA-ScR flow chart of the systematic review is depicted in Fig. 1. The most researched specialties (Table 1) were digestive and general surgery (39.4%) and orthopedics (17.1%). Most studies were conducted at a single center in North America (69.7%) and mainly focused on elective surgeries (77.1%). The number of procedures analyzed ranged from 6 to 89,720 (median = 1031). The majority of study designs were observational (88.1%) rather than interventional (11.7%).

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flowchart

Full size image
Table 1 Characteristics of populations and studies
Full size table

The investigation of organizational factors has become a growing theme over time with 89% (68/76) of studies published after 2010 (Fig. 2a). Overall, 34 (44.7%) studies investigated the role of the surgical team composition, 15 (19.7%) looked into the effect of team stability, 11 (14.5%) examined the effect of team work, 9 (11.8%) studied the influence of work scheduling and 7 (9.2%) explored the effects of disturbing elements in the operating room (Fig. 2b).

Fig. 2
figure 2

a Number of studies according to time. b Number of publications by organizational factor category. Legend: Definitions of organizational factors: Team composition = number and experience of surgeon, residents, anesthetists, nurses; surgical team relations (work under supervision, involvement of residents, surgeon/resident-nurse-anesthetists relations. Team stability = number of former collaborations (surgeon/resident, surgeon/anesthetist, surgeon/nurse), turnover of surgical and anesthetic team between procedure or during a same procedure. Team work = measuring scales of teamwork, leadership, communication inside team including communication failure. Disturbing elements = number of disturbing elements, type of disturbance, duration of disturbance. Work scheduling = order of scheduling, modifications in scheduling, dedicated operating room, patient turn over, work overlay

Full size image

Methodological quality of studies is graphically presented in Fig. 3. Of the three criteria used to compose the quality score, 53.9% (n = 41) of publications included data on the number of patients and professionals, 39.5% (n = 30) were multicenter studies, and 32.9% employed longitudinal or randomized designs (n = 25). Overall, 31.57% (n = 24), and 7.89% (n = 6) of the included studies met respectively 2 and 3 of those criteria. Table 2 represents the number of studies and quality scores by organizational parameters and outcomes. Team composition (n = 34) was the most extensively studied determinant with the highest mean quality score (QS = 1.70 [1–3]). Surgical safety (n = 53, QS = 1.41 [0–3]) was investigated with better quality score compared to operative time (n = 60, QS = 1.21 [0–3].

Fig. 3
figure 3

Graphical representation of main methodological items of available studies

Full size image
Table 2 Number and quality score of studies evaluating the effect of organizational parameters on outcomes, according to study design
Full size table

Additional files 3, 4 and 5: Appendix 3, 4 and 5 provide detailed findings of the selected studies according to each investigated outcome. Corresponding results were summarized in Fig. 4 and hereunder per determinant category.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Impact of organizational determinants on outcomes

Full size image

Surgical team composition was the most extensively studied determinant. On the one hand, having experienced surgeons in the team decreased both the operating time and morbidity rates. Having an experienced anesthesia team also reduced induction times. On the other hand, involving residents during the procedure could led to a longer operating time. Resident participation appeared to result in higher complication rates, redo surgeries, re-hospitalization, length of stay and costs.

Stable surgical teams could reduce both operating time, costs and postoperative morbidity, contrary to changing teams. Five studies found a reduction in complications with stable teams, while team turnover increased the risk of redo surgery and length of stay.

Enhancing teamwork among surgical teams can reduce operative time, as well as implementing standardized collaboration procedures. Conversely, poor teamwork quality was associated with higher postoperative morbidity.

Disturbing elements during surgery were potentially associated with longer operating time and redo surgery.

Regarding work scheduling, the use of specialty-dedicated operating rooms was associated with reduced morbidity and operative time, more patients treated, and saved costs. Appropriate work scheduling was also found to have a positive influence on patient outcomes.

Discussion

We analyzed the influence of various organizational determinants on surgical performance. Out of the 76 publications that met our inclusion criteria, we found that operating with a specialized [23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32], stable and dedicated surgical team [5, 8, 27, 33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43], and optimizing the operating schedule [44,45,46], in a room dedicated to the specialty [47,48,49,50,51,52,53], leads to improved outcomes. The optimization of teamwork [34, 44, 54,55,56,57,58,59], as quantified using scales such as OTAS (observational teamwork assessment for surgery), NOTSS (non-technical skills for surgeons), and SPLINTS (scrub practitioners’ list of intraoperative non-technical skills), was found to potentially reduce operative time without affecting the complication rate. Poor teamwork [55, 57], on the other hand, could increase the cost of care [55]. In addition, optimizing teamwork was positively correlated with a decrease in inter-individual communication failures [55, 60]. Scheduling errors or unplanned changes were found to result in a trend to increase operative times [28]. However, optimizing patient scheduling did not influence the complication rate or the number of procedures performed per day [45, 46]. There was mixed evidence regarding the surgical resident involvement: most of studies reported either no association [4, 23, 26, 29, 61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73] or a negative [4, 23, 25, 26, 63,64,65,66,67,68, 74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84] influence regarding operative time and surgical safety, whereas few found a positive association [28, 30, 76]. Disturbing elements [57, 85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92] and communication failures [93] within the surgical team were found to increase both the operative time and morbidity-mortality rate. The anesthesia team was found to be more frequently affected by disruptions, leading to longer intervals between interventions [88]. One study [89] reported a positive relationship between ambient noise intensity and the rate of general complications.

The objective of this systematic review was to highlight the evidence available in the literature regarding the influence of organizational determinants on operative performance. Our results indicate that available literature is relatively scarce and of poor quality. A preliminary search of PubMed and Scopus showed that thirteen reviews and meta-analyses [6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17, 94] evaluating the influence of organizational factors on surgical performance have been published to date. Most of reported studies in these reviews were not analytical, had few quantitative data, and focused on only one procedure, domain or a limited number of outcomes. An analysis of the relationship between organizational factors and postoperative outcomes or surgical performance was identified in five reviews [6,7,8,9, 94]. One review dealt with the evaluation of two scales (OTAS and NOTECHS), and included 14 studies that quantify teamwork, but with no correlation with clinical outcomes [6]. A second review evaluated the impact of intraoperative failure on major complication rate and on hospital mortality. Miscommunication induced 22% of failure during surgery, while equipment failure induced 5.2% of errors [7]. Effective communication is crucial in various stages of surgical procedures, particularly during team turnover. In response to this, Nasiri et al. introduced a handover checklist, resulting in a notable decrease in information omission and an improvement in overall handover quality for scrubs. Although the checklist increased handover duration, it significantly enhanced overall satisfaction, emphasizing its positive influence on communication quality and team contentment within the surgical team [95]. Team familiarity could also improve post operative outcomes according to Awtry et al. who conclude that higher surgeon-anesthesiologist familiarity in cardiac surgery teams correlated with lower rates of adverse outcomes, including 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality, composite morbidity, and the combined endpoint of 30-day mortality or composite morbidity [96]. Two reviews investigated the improvement of team communication on morbidity. Those reviews concluded that pediatric mortality decreased from 2.7% to 1%, and that global mortality decreased from 20.2% to 11% in general surgery after team training for communication [8, 9]. Three reviews evaluated the influence of the participation of residents operating under supervision in simple or complex procedures according to their experience [10, 11, 94]. One of the reviews dealt with team composition11 in general without measurement of complications. This study focused on flow disruptions and found a 32.5% delay rate in surgical procedure time. Moreover, team stability led to 24% faster surgery. On the other hand, Bougie et al. [11] evaluated only the bleeding rate and the operative time, which increased. Another review [12] specified the importance of the seniority/experience of the operator on the speed of execution of the procedures and the reduction of unexpected intraoperative events. Some authors also evaluated the impact of the surgeon gender, finding in a study involving 1,165,711 patients, that those treated by female surgeons exhibited lower rates of adverse postoperative outcomes, including mortality at 90 days and 1 year, compared to patients treated by male surgeons, highlighting potential differences in patient outcomes based on physician gender [97].Three reviews have described an effect of music in the operating room, but only evaluated the effects on expert surgeons or surgeons in training who were working on experimental models, rather than in-vivo. The results showed that soft and soothing melodies would promote concentration as opposed to aggressive sounds [13,14,15]. These studies are similar to the concept of task interruption described in another review [16] that focused on unexpected events (phone calls, cancellations) and their potential per operative influence, but the impacts were not quantified. Other reviews [17] described the influence of team learning and how to use a new tool (the surgical robot) on organization and delays in the operating room. In a study involving robotic prostatectomy, post-intervention console time significantly decreased, dual instrument inactivity was reduced, and the use of dual consoles increased, suggesting that standardizing intraoperative tasks improves efficiency and may enhance operating room capacity [98]. Conversely, simulation-based training across professions showed uniform increases in self-efficacy and motivation, emphasizing the importance of profession-specific and multiprofessional team training [99]. This team training could facilitate access to the operating room and reduce unforeseen events and financial losses due to cancellations. In a study about 933 elective procedures, a high cancellation rate was observed primarily due to a lack of operating room time and inadequate patient preparation, emphasizing the need for improved patient evaluation workflows, sufficient operating room staffing, and punctual start times to enhance operating room efficiency in settings with a high unmet burden of surgical disease [100]. Team learning, involving 40 operating room staff, identified key themes such as a commitment to learning, the significance of a safe space in debriefing, and the role of leadership in mitigating hierarchies [101]. It highlighted the importance of organizational parameters during each surgical step, evolving according to the incoming sequence: beginning, per procedural, and after surgery. Consistent with observations in six surgical departments by Arad et al., machine learning identified 24 contributing factors from each surgical, anesthetic, or circulating nurse work, with varying impacts on wrong site surgeries and retained foreign items, indicating the need for adjusting safety standards based on surgery characteristics and risk assessment in each operating room [102]. The implementation of optimization measures for all these determinants would improve outcomes [103]. Incorporating cognitive support systems (CSTs) in surgical procedures, as indicated by a comprehensive analysis of 37 studies, could result in superior surgical performance compared to traditional methods, manifesting in reduced error rates, enhanced efficiency, and the majority of CSTs exhibiting over 90% accuracy in identifying anatomical markers with an error margin below 5 mm; however, the constrained ergonomic design of current CSTs has impeded broad clinical adoption, underscoring the necessity for additional patient-centered clinical data before the universal integration of CSTs [104]. These studies emphasize the importance of organizational parameters during each surgical step, which evolves according to the incoming sequence: beginning, per procedural, and after surgery [105].

Limitations of the study

This systematic review was based on 76 quantitative studies that investigated the influence of organizational factors on surgical performance. The data was collected from patients' electronic health records in most studies and covered a wide range of surgical procedures, with digestive and orthopedic surgery being the most represented. Despite the retrospective nature of these publications, the impact was minimized because of quality score assessment. The selection bias was also minimized through a double-blinded review process. The study focused on two databases (PubMed and Scopus), and only included English publications, which limited the scope of the research, and possibly limited the number of determinants that are presented and discussed in this manuscript and may bias to english speaking country outcomes. The majority of the studies (60/76) evaluated the influence of these determinants (team composition, team stability, teamwork, work scheduling, disturbing elements) on operative time, 53/76 on surgical safety and 24/76 on economic resource consumption. OSF registries and institutional databases were not included in the search. It should be noted that there is a lack of studies examining the impact of each determinant individually on each outcome. Specifically, there is limited research on the relationship between team stability and economic resource consumption, teamwork and surgical safety/economic resource consumption, work scheduling and surgical safety/economic resource consumption, as well as disturbing elements and operative time/surgical safety/economic resource consumption. This scarcity of studies represents a limitation in our understanding of the specific associations. Additionally, the majority of the studies, 67 retrospective and 9 prospective, presented low-level evidence. To comprehensively address the diverse and multifaceted nature of our subject, which encompasses various research objectives and methodologies including observational and interventional studies, we opted for a systematic review instead of a meta-analysis. This choice was driven by the challenge of conducting an all-encompassing assessment of methodological quality due to the varied nature of the studies. Our assessment of quality focused on a limited set of three criteria, resulting in a mean quality score. We opted for this limited scale of evaluation instead of validated GRADE evaluation because of the overall poor methodology/heterogeneity in the majority of included studies. When the quality score was 0, we chose to retain the publication in the analysis. The objective was to describe comprehensively the impact of organizational factors, and these studies provide informative elements that allow us to identify trends for further consideration. This enabled us to keep a wide overview of the subject area.

The limited quantity of studies and their substantial heterogeneity prevented a definitive determination of the positive or negative impact of each determinant on outcomes. As a result, the results were presented in terms of median odds ratios and statistically tested values, but many of the data only allow for limited conclusions to be drawn as studies did not provide statistical comparisons. The assessed literature is relatively poor in nature and limits conclusions; on the other hand, this enabled us to throw into relief opportunities for future research.

Identified gaps and opportunities for future research

The relationship between organizational factors and operative performance is a relatively new field of study. On the other hand, some studies report the analysis of a link between determinants and outcomes that are not quantitatively described, making it impossible to reach a conclusion of statistical association. Most of the research on this topic has been conducted since 2010, and leaves many questions unanswered. The recent growth in data on organizational factors can be attributed to the increased availability of data. The majority of the available data focuses on the influence of the determinants on surgery duration. Team composition and team stability were the two most studied determinants affecting morbidity and mortality. Although various studies have mentioned the relationship between each of the five determinants and economic resource consumption, this outcome still lacks comprehensive investigation and is characterized by a poor quality score. It is currently impossible to determine whether there is a significant association between the other determinants, such as teamwork, work scheduling, and disturbing elements, and operative performance due to the limited number of available studies. Additionally, the clinical relevance of the results has not been clearly established. Many studies only focus on one or two outcomes. These studies do not adjust measured performance according to patient-related factors and the expected complexity/risk of surgery, making it difficult to have a general view of the subject.

The literature on team composition, resident involvement, and their link with operative time and outcomes is abundant but heterogeneous. Some studies report a positive association between increased postoperative morbidity and resident participation, while others report a negative association. However, the results are consistent in showing an increase in operative time related to the participation of residents as surgeons in training.

To further understand the impact of teamwork, it would be necessary to quantify teamwork and assess the association between teamwork and outcomes on validated scales. To date, only 11 studies have been found on this topic, with only 3 of them reporting validated scales correlated with outcomes. The scarcity of studies on teamwork is due to the challenge of analyzing teamwork through declaration of each professional, video analysis, or scales quantifying teamwork in a simple and reproducible manner. From a methodological standpoint, future studies need to improve their quality and level of evidence. The average score we used in this systematic review was relatively low (1.26/3), with a substantial number of retrospective studies. The least studied organizational factors, such as work scheduling and disturbing elements, require further investigation. At this time, there is a lack of data to determine their significant clinical impact. It is essential to conduct new prospective studies to assess the impact of these under-researched organizational factors.

Conclusion

Recent studies have highlighted the importance of organizational factors in surgical outcomes, particularly the positive impact of specialized and stable team compositions. However, the current literature lacks prospective studies investigating other organizational factors in the operating room environment. Therefore, further prospective quantitative research is needed to enhance our understanding of the broader range of organizational drivers that contribute to surgical performance.

Availability of data and materials

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Abbreviations

OTAS:

Teamwork assessment for surgery

NOTSS:

Non technical skills for surgeons

SPLINTS:

Scrub practitioners’ list of intraoperative non technical skills

OSF:

Open Science Framework

NOTECHS:

Non technical skills

CST:

Cognitive support systems

References

  1. Vincent C, Moorthy K, Sarker SK, et al. Systems approaches to surgical quality and safety: from concept to measurement. Ann Surg. 2004;239:475–82.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Panagioti M, Khan K, Keers RN, et al. Prevalence, severity, and nature of preventable patient harm across medical care settings: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2019;366: l4185.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Xu R, Carty MJ, Orgill DP, et al. The teaming curve: a longitudinal study of the influence of surgical team familiarity on operative time. Ann Surg. 2013;258:953–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Elbardissi AW, Duclos A, Rawn JD, et al. Cumulative team experience matters more than individual surgeon experience in cardiac surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013;145:328–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Maruthappu M, Duclos A, Zhou CD, et al. The impact of team familiarity and surgical experience on operative efficiency: a retrospective analysis. J R Soc Med. 2016;109:147–53.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Etherington N, Larrigan S, Liu H, et al. Measuring the teamwork performance of operating room teams: a systematic review of assessment tools and their measurement properties. J Interprof Care. 2021;35(1):37–4.

  7. Lear R, Godfrey AD, Riga C, et al. The Impact of System Factors on Quality and Safety in Arterial Surgery: A Systematic Review. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2017;54:79–93.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Nurok M, Sundt TM, Frankel A. Teamwork and communication in the operating room: relationship to discrete outcomes and research challenges. Anesthesiol Clin. 2011;29:1–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sacks GD, Shannon EM, Dawes AJ, et al. Teamwork, communication and safety climate: a systematic review of interventions to improve surgical culture. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015;24:458–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gjeraa K, Spanager L, Konge L, et al. Non-technical skills in minimally invasive surgery teams: a systematic review. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:5185–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bougie O, Zuckerman SL, Switzer N, et al. Influence of Resident Involvement in Obstetrics and Gynaecology Surgery on Surgical Outcomes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2018;40:1170–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bath MF, Awopetu AI, Stather PW, et al. The Impact of Operating Surgeon Experience, Supervised Trainee vs. Trained Surgeon, in Vascular Surgery Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2019;58:292–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. El Boghdady M, Ewalds-Kvist BM. The influence of music on the surgical task performance: A systematic review. Int J Surg. 2020;73:101–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Moris DN, Linos D. Music meets surgery: two sides to the art of “healing.” Surg Endosc. 2013;27:719–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rastipisheh P, Choobineh A, Razeghi M, et al. The effects of playing music during surgery on the performance of the surgical team: A systematic review. Work. 2019;64:407–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Koch A, Burns J, Catchpole K, et al. Associations of workflow disruptions in the operating room with surgical outcomes: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. BMJ Qual Saf. 2020;29:1033–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gillespie BM, Gillespie J, Boorman RJ, et al. The Impact of Robotic-Assisted Surgery on Team Performance: A Systematic Mixed Studies Review. Hum Factors. 2020;18720820928624.

  18. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:467–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Nyanchoka L, Tudur-Smith C, Thu VN, et al. A scoping review describes methods used to identify, prioritize and display gaps in health research. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;109:99–110.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Peters MDJ, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, et al. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13:141–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8:19–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5:69.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Macki M, Fakih M, Kandagatla P, et al. The Impact of Different Postgraduate Year Training in Neurosurgery Residency on 30-Day Return to Operating Room: A National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Study. World Neurosurgery. 2018;114:e70–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wu WW, Medin C, Bucknor A, et al. Evaluating the Impact of Resident Participation and the July Effect on Outcomes in Autologous Breast Reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2018;81:156–62.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Vashdi DR, Bamberger PA, Erez M. Can Surgical Teams Ever Learn? The Role of Coordination, Complexity, and Transitivity in Action Team Learning. AMJ. 2013;56:945–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Shabtai M, Rosin D, Zmora O, et al. The impact of a resident’s seniority on operative time and length of hospital stay for laparoscopic appendectomy: outcomes used to measure the resident’s laparoscopic skills. Surg Endosc. 2004;18:1328–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Engelmann CR, Neis JP, Kirschbaum C, et al. A noise-reduction program in a pediatric operation theatre is associated with surgeon’s benefits and a reduced rate of complications: a prospective controlled clinical trial. Ann Surg. 2014;259:1025–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wu J-M, Yen H-H, Ho T-W, et al. The effect of performing two pancreatoduodenectomies by a single surgical team in one day on surgeons and patient outcomes. HPB (Oxford). 2020;22:1185–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Carter JM, Riley C, Ananth A, et al. Improving outcomes in a high-output pediatric otolaryngology practice. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2014;78:2229–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Gross CE, Chang D, Adams SB, et al. Surgical resident involvement in foot and ankle surgery. Foot Ankle Surg. 2017;23:261–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Cooper WO, Spain DA, Guillamondegui O, et al. Association of Coworker Reports About Unprofessional Behavior by Surgeons With Surgical Complications in Their Patients. JAMA Surg. 2019;154:828–34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Schrand KV, Hussain LR, Dunki-Jacobs EM, et al. Outcomes associated with resident involvement in ventral hernia repair: A population based study using the NSQIP database. Am J Surg. 2018;216:923–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Healey AN, Olsen S, Davis R, et al. A method for measuring work interference in surgical teams. Cogn Tech Work. 2008;10:305–12.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Hu Y-Y, Arriaga AF, Peyre SE, et al. Deconstructing intraoperative communication failures. J Surg Res. 2012;177:37–42.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Sevdalis N, Undre S, McDermott J, et al. Impact of intraoperative distractions on patient safety: a prospective descriptive study using validated instruments. World J Surg. 2014;38:751–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kurmann A, Keller S, Tschan-Semmer F, et al. Impact of team familiarity in the operating room on surgical complications. World J Surg. 2014;38:3047–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Xiao Y, Jones A, Zhang BB, et al. Team consistency and occurrences of prolonged operative time, prolonged hospital stay, and hospital readmission: a retrospective analysis. World J Surg. 2015;39:890–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Zheng B, Panton ONM, Al-Tayeb TA. Operative length independently affected by surgical team size: data from 2 Canadian hospitals. Can J Surg. 2012;55:371–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Murji A, Luketic L, Sobel ML, et al. Evaluating the effect of distractions in the operating room on clinical decision-making and patient safety. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:4499–504.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Kazaure HS, Roman SA, Sosa JA. The resident as surgeon: an analysis of ACS-NSQIP. J Surg Res. 2012;178:126–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Bao MH, Keeney BJ, Moschetti WE, et al. Resident Participation is Not Associated With Worse Outcomes After TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018;476:1375–90.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Yamaguchi JT, Garcia RM, Cloney MB, et al. Impact of resident participation on outcomes following lumbar fusion: An analysis of 5655 patients from the ACS-NSQIP database. J Clin Neurosci. 2018;56:131–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Salm L, Chapalley D, Perrodin SF, et al. Impact of changing the surgical team for wound closure on surgical site infection: A matched case-control study. PLoS ONE. 2020;15: e0241712.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Stepaniak PS, Heij C, Buise MP, et al. Bariatric surgery with operating room teams that stayed fixed during the day: a multicenter study analyzing the effects on patient outcomes, teamwork and safety climate, and procedure duration. Anesth Analg. 2012;115:1384–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Nasri B, Saxe J. Impact of Residents on Safety Outcomes in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy. World J Surg. 2019;43:3013–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Ebadi A, Tighe PJ, Zhang L, et al. DisTeam: A decision support tool for surgical team selection. Artif Intell Med. 2017;76:16–26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Rodriguez T, Wolf-Mandroux A, Soret J, et al. Compared efficiency of trauma versus scheduled orthopaedic surgery operating rooms in a university hospital. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2019;105:179–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Morgan L, New S, Robertson E, et al. Effectiveness of facilitated introduction of a standard operating procedure into routine processes in the operating theatre: a controlled interrupted time series. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015;24:120–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Azzi AJ, Shah K, Seely A, et al. Surgical team turnover and operative time: An evaluation of operating room efficiency during pulmonary resection. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;151:1391–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Leader BA, Wiebracht ND, Meinzen-Derr J, et al. The impact of resident involvement on tonsillectomy outcomes and surgical time. Laryngoscope. 2020;130:2481–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. DiDato S, Farber A, Rybin D, et al. The effect of trainee involvement on perioperative outcomes of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2016;63:16–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Small TJ, Gad BV, Klika AK, et al. Dedicated orthopedic operating room unit improves operating room efficiency. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28:1066–1071.e2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Roberts TT, Vanushkina M, Khasnavis S, et al. Dedicated orthopaedic operating rooms: beneficial to patients and providers alike. J Orthop Trauma. 2015;29:e18–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Harmanli O, Solak S, Bayram A, et al. Optimizing the robotic surgery team: an operations management perspective. Int Urogynecol J. 2021;32:1379–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Healey AN, Sevdalis N, Vincent CA. Measuring intra-operative interference from distraction and interruption observed in the operating theatre. Ergonomics. 2006;49:589–604.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Yong H, Chen Q, Yoo E, et al. How Does Resident Participation Alter the Outcome of Surgery for Pectus Excavatum? J Surg Educ. 2020;77:150–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. van Eijk RPA, van Veen-Berkx E, Kazemier G, et al. Effect of Individual Surgeons and Anesthesiologists on Operating Room Time. Anesth Analg. 2016;123:445–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Stahl JE, Sandberg WS, Daily B, et al. Reorganizing patient care and workflow in the operating room: a cost-effectiveness study. Surgery. 2006;139:717–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Schraagen JM, Schouten T, Smit M, et al. A prospective study of paediatric cardiac surgical microsystems: assessing the relationships between non-routine events, teamwork and patient outcomes. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011;20:599–603.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Haskins IN, Kudsi J, Hayes K, et al. The effect of resident involvement on bariatric surgical outcomes: an ACS-NSQIP analysis. J Surg Res. 2018;223:224–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Kim RB, Garcia RM, Smith ZA, et al. Impact of Resident Participation on Outcomes After Single-Level Anterior Cervical Diskectomy and Fusion: An Analysis of 3265 Patients from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1976;2016(41):E289–296.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Okamura A, Watanabe M, Fukudome I, et al. Surgical team proficiency in minimally invasive esophagectomy is related to case volume and improves patient outcomes. Esophagus. 2018;15:115–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Seth AK, Hirsch EM, Kim JYS, et al. Two surgeons, one patient: the impact of surgeon-surgeon familiarity on patient outcomes following mastectomy with immediate reconstruction. Breast. 2013;22:914–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Özdemir-van Brunschot DMD, Warlé MC, van der Jagt MF, et al. Surgical team composition has a major impact on effectiveness and costs in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. World J Urol. 2015;33:733–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Catchpole KR, Giddings AEB, Wilkinson M, et al. Improving patient safety by identifying latent failures in successful operations. Surgery. 2007;142:102–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Doherty C, Nakoneshny SC, Harrop AR, et al. A standardized operative team for major head and neck cancer ablation and reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130:82–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Hawkins AT, Smith AD, Schaumeier MJ, et al. The effect of surgeon specialization on outcomes after ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2014;60:590–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Edelstein AI, Lovecchio FC, Saha S, et al. Impact of Resident Involvement on Orthopaedic Surgery Outcomes: An Analysis of 30,628 Patients from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96: e131.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Hernández-Irizarry R, Zendejas B, Ali SM, et al. Impact of resident participation on laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairs: are residents slowing us down? J Surg Educ. 2012;69:746–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Phan K, Phan P, Stratton A, et al. Impact of resident involvement on cervical and lumbar spine surgery outcomes. Spine J. 2019;19:1905–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Puram SV, Kozin ED, Sethi RK, et al. Influence of trainee participation on operative times for adult and pediatric cochlear implantation. Cochlear Implants Int. 2015;16:175–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Winter TW, Olson RJ, Larson SA, et al. Resident and fellow participation in strabismus surgery: effect of level of training and number of assistants on operative time and cost. Ophthalmology. 2014;121:797–801.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Liao A, Hart AML, Losken A. The Impact of Medical Students on Bilateral Reduction Mammoplasty Procedure Time. Ann Plast Surg. 2017;79:3–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Lim S, Parsa AT, Kim BD, et al. Impact of resident involvement in neurosurgery: an analysis of 8748 patients from the 2011 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. J Neurosurg. 2015;122:962–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Muelleman T, Shew M, Muelleman RJ, et al. Impact of Resident Participation on Operative Time and Outcomes in Otologic Surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018;158:151–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Davis SS, Husain FA, Lin E, et al. Resident participation in index laparoscopic general surgical cases: impact of the learning environment on surgical outcomes. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;216:96–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Goldfarb M, Gondek S, Hodin R, et al. Resident/fellow assistance in the operating room for endocrine surgery in the era of fellowships. Surgery. 2010;148:1065–71 (discussion 1071-1072).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Weber J, Catchpole K, Becker AJ, et al. Effects of Flow Disruptions on Mental Workload and Surgical Performance in Robotic-Assisted Surgery. World J Surg. 2018;42:3599–607.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Iannuzzi JC, Rickles AS, Deeb A-P, et al. Outcomes associated with resident involvement in partial colectomy. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56:212–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Siam B, Al-Kurd A, Simanovsky N, et al. Comparison of Appendectomy Outcomes Between Senior General Surgeons and General Surgery Residents. JAMA Surg. 2017;152:679–85.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Krell RW, Birkmeyer NJO, Reames BN, et al. Effects of resident involvement on complication rates after laparoscopic gastric bypass. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;218:253–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Thomas AA, Kim B, Derboghossians A, et al. Impact of surgical case order on perioperative outcomes for robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Urol Ann. 2014;6:142–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Farnworth LR, Lemay DE, Wooldridge T, et al. A comparison of operative times in arthroscopic ACL reconstruction between orthopaedic faculty and residents: the financial impact of orthopaedic surgical training in the operating room. Iowa Orthop J. 2001;21:31–5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Doyon L, Moreno-Koehler A, Ricciardi R, et al. Resident participation in laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a comparison of outcomes from the ACS-NSQIP database. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:3216–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Cendán JC, Good M. Interdisciplinary work flow assessment and redesign decreases operating room turnover time and allows for additional caseload. Arch Surg. 2006;141:65–9 (discussion 70).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Finnesgard EJ, Pandian TK, Kendrick ML, et al. Do not break up the surgical team! Familiarity and expertise affect operative time in complex surgery. Am J Surg. 2018;215:447–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. He W, Ni S, Chen G, et al. The composition of surgical teams in the operating room and its impact on surgical team performance in China. Surg Endosc. 2014;28:1473–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Zheng B, Fung E, Fu B, et al. Surgical team composition differs between laparoscopic and open procedures. Surg Endosc. 2015;29:2260–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Malek KS, Namm JP, Garberoglio CA, et al. Attending Surgeon Variation in Operative Case Length: An Opportunity for Quality Improvement. Am Surg. 2018;84:1595–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Fecso AB, Kuzulugil SS, Babaoglu C, et al. Relationship between intraoperative non-technical performance and technical events in bariatric surgery. Br J Surg. 2018;105:1044–50.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Göras C, Olin K, Unbeck M, et al. Tasks, multitasking and interruptions among the surgical team in an operating room: a prospective observational study. BMJ Open. 2019;9: e026410.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. Persoon MC, Broos HJHP, Witjes JA, et al. The effect of distractions in the operating room during endourological procedures. Surg Endosc. 2011;25:437–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Schiff L, Tsafrir Z, Aoun J, et al. Quality of Communication in Robotic Surgery and Surgical Outcomes. JSLS. 2016;20:e2016.00026.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. Dedy NJ, Bonrath EM, Zevin B, et al. Teaching nontechnical skills in surgical residency: a systematic review of current approaches and outcomes. Surgery. 2013;154:1000–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Nasiri E, Lotfi M, Mahdavinoor SMM, Rafiei MH. The impact of a structured handover checklist for intraoperative staff shift changes on effective communication, OR team satisfaction, and patient safety: a pilot study. Patient Saf Surg. 2021;15:25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. Awtry, Jake A. MD*,†; Abernathy, James H. MD‡; Wu, Xiaoting PhD§; Yang, Jie PhD§; Zhang, Min PhD∥; Hou, Hechuan MS§; Kaneko, Tsuyoshi MD¶; de la Cruz, Kim I. MD*; Stakich-Alpirez, Korana MS§; Yule, Steven PhD#; Cleveland, Joseph C. Jr MD**; Shook, Douglas C. MD††; Fitzsimons, Michael G. MD‡‡; Harrington, Steven D. MD§§; Pagani, Francis D. MD PhD∥∥; Likosky, Donald S. PhD§; on behalf of the Video Assessment of caRdiac Surgery qualITY (VARSITY) Surgery Investigators. Evaluating the Impact of Operative Team Familiarity on Cardiac Surgery Outcomes: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Medicare Beneficiaries. Annals of Surgery ():September 27, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000006100.

  97. Wallis CJD, Jerath A, Aminoltejari K, et al. Surgeon Sex and Long-Term Postoperative Outcomes Among Patients Undergoing Common Surgeries. JAMA Surg. 2023;158(11):1185–94. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2023.3744.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Kanabolo DL, Merguerian P, Ahn J, Low DK, Fernandez N. Increase in robot assisted operating room efficiency: A quality improvement study. J. Pediatr. Urol. 2023 (Nov 25, Online ahead of print).

  99. Escher C, Rystedt H, Creutzfeldt J, Meurling L, Hedman L, Felländer-Tsai L, Kjellin A. All professions can benefit - a mixed-methods study on simulation-based teamwork training for operating room teams. Adv Simul (Lond). 2023;8:18.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. Negash S, Anberber E, Ayele B, Ashebir Z, Abate A, Bitew S, Derbew M, Weiser TG, Starr N, Mammo TN. Operating room efficiency in a low resource setting: a pilot study from a large tertiary referral center in Ethiopia. Patient Saf Surg. 2022;16:3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  101. McElroy C, Skegg E, Mudgway M, Murray N, Holmes L, Weller J, Hamill J. Psychological Safety and Hierarchy in Operating Room Debriefing: Reflexive Thematic Analysis. J. Surg. Res. 2023 (Dec 11, Online ahead of print).

  102. Arad D, Rosenfeld A, Magnezi R. Factors contributing to preventing operating room “never events”: a machine learning analysis. Patient Saf Surg. 2023;17:6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  103. Stahel PF, Cobianchi L, Dal Mas F, Paterson-Brown S, Sakakushev BE, Nguyen C, Fraga GP, Yule S, Damaskos D, Healey AJ, Biffl W, Ansaloni L, Catena F. The role of teamwork and non-technical skills for improving emergency surgical outcomes: an international perspective. Patient Saf Surg. 2022;16:8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  104. Zhang ZS, Wu Y, Zheng B. A Review of Cognitive Support Systems in the Operating Room. Surg. Innov. 2023 (Dec 5, Online ahead of print).

  105. Raval MV. Making Operating Rooms Safer: Communication, Teamwork, and Investment in Technologies Are Needed. J Am Coll Surg. 2023;237:872–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Wathen C, Kshettry VR, Krishnaney A, et al. The Association Between Operating Room Personnel and Turnover With Surgical Site Infection in More Than 12 000 Neurosurgical Cases. Neurosurgery. 2016;79:889–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Acun Z, Cihan A, Ulukent SC, et al. A randomized prospective study of complications between general surgery residents and attending surgeons in near-total thyroidectomies. Surg Today. 2004;34:997–1001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Davenport DL, Henderson WG, Mosca CL, et al. Risk-adjusted morbidity in teaching hospitals correlates with reported levels of communication and collaboration on surgical teams but not with scale measures of teamwork climate, safety climate, or working conditions. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;205:778–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This project has received a European Research Council (ERC) Starting Grant from 2019 to 2024 under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (Grant agreement No. 801660 — TopSurgeons — ERC-2018-STG).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research On Healthcare Performance RESHAPE, Université Claude Bernard, Inserm U1290, Lyon 1, France

    Arnaud Pasquer, Simon Ducarroz, Jean Christophe Lifante, Sarah Skinner & Antoine Duclos

  2. Department of Digestive and Colorectal Surgery, Edouard Herriot University Hospital, 5 Place d’ Arsonval, 69003, Lyon, France

    Arnaud Pasquer & Gilles Poncet

  3. Health Data Department, Hospices Civils de Lyon, France

    Jean Christophe Lifante, Sarah Skinner & Antoine Duclos

  4. INSERM, UMR 1052-UMR5286, UMR 1032 Lyon Cancer Research Center, Faculté Laennec, Lyon, France

    Gilles Poncet

  5. Lyon University, Claude Bernard Lyon 1 University, Villeurbanne, France

    Arnaud Pasquer, Jean Christophe Lifante, Gilles Poncet & Antoine Duclos

  6. Department of Endocrine Surgery, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France

    Jean Christophe Lifante

Authors
  1. Arnaud Pasquer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Simon Ducarroz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jean Christophe Lifante
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sarah Skinner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gilles Poncet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Antoine Duclos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AD had full access to all the data in the study and took responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Concept and design: AD, AP, JCL. Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: AP, SD, JCL, GP, AD. Drafting of the manuscript: AP, AD. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: AP, SD, JCL, SS, GP, AD. Administrative, technical, or material support: AD. Supervision: AD, GP,

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arnaud Pasquer.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This systematic review does not require ethical approval.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Appendix 1.

Search strategy [106, 107].

Additional file 2: Appendix 2.

Data extraction instrument.

Additional file 3: Appendix 3.

Determinants associated with operative time [108].

Additional file 4: Appendix 4.

Determinants associated with surgical safety.

Additional file 5: Appendix 5.

Determinants associated with economic resource consumption.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pasquer, A., Ducarroz, S., Lifante, J.C. et al. Operating room organization and surgical performance: a systematic review. Patient Saf Surg 18, 5 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13037-023-00388-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13037-023-00388-3

Keywords

Patient Safety in Surgery

ISSN: 1754-9493