Roger D Dias, Steven J Yule, Ryan Harari, Marco A Zenati
{"title":"Exploring Intraoperative Cognitive Biases in Cardiac Surgery Teams.","authors":"Roger D Dias, Steven J Yule, Ryan Harari, Marco A Zenati","doi":"10.54941/ahfe1004831","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study focuses on understanding the influence of cognitive biases in the intra-operative decision-making process within cardiac surgery teams, recognizing the complexity and high-stakes nature of such environments. We aimed to investigate the perceived prevalence and impact of cognitive biases among cardiac surgery teams, and how these biases may affect intraoperative decisions and patient safety and outcomes. A mixed-methods approach was utilized, combining quantitative ratings across 32 different cognitive biases (0 to 100 visual analogue scale), regarding their \"likelihood of occurring\" and \"potential for patient harm\" during the intraoperative phase of cardiac surgery. Based on these ratings, we collected qualitative insights on the most-rated cognitive biases from semi-structured interviews with surgeons, anaesthesiologists, and perfusionists who work in a cardiac operating room. A total of 16 participants, including cardiac surgery researchers and clinicians, took part in the study. We found a significant presence of cognitive biases, particularly confirmation bias and overconfidence, which influenced decision-making processes and had the potential for patient harm. Of 32 cognitive biases, 6 were rated above the 75th percentile for both criteria (potential for patient harm, likelihood of occurring). Our preliminary findings provide a first step toward a deeper understanding of the complex cognitive mechanisms that underlie clinical reasoning and decision-making in the operating room. Future studies should further explore this topic, especially the relationship between the occurrence of intraoperative cognitive biases and postoperative surgical outcomes. Additionally, the impact of metacognition strategies (e.g. debiasing training) on reducing the impact of cognitive bias and improving intraoperative performance should also be investigated.</p>","PeriodicalId":520077,"journal":{"name":"Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics Conference","volume":"130 ","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11342855/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics Conference","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54941/ahfe1004831","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This study focuses on understanding the influence of cognitive biases in the intra-operative decision-making process within cardiac surgery teams, recognizing the complexity and high-stakes nature of such environments. We aimed to investigate the perceived prevalence and impact of cognitive biases among cardiac surgery teams, and how these biases may affect intraoperative decisions and patient safety and outcomes. A mixed-methods approach was utilized, combining quantitative ratings across 32 different cognitive biases (0 to 100 visual analogue scale), regarding their "likelihood of occurring" and "potential for patient harm" during the intraoperative phase of cardiac surgery. Based on these ratings, we collected qualitative insights on the most-rated cognitive biases from semi-structured interviews with surgeons, anaesthesiologists, and perfusionists who work in a cardiac operating room. A total of 16 participants, including cardiac surgery researchers and clinicians, took part in the study. We found a significant presence of cognitive biases, particularly confirmation bias and overconfidence, which influenced decision-making processes and had the potential for patient harm. Of 32 cognitive biases, 6 were rated above the 75th percentile for both criteria (potential for patient harm, likelihood of occurring). Our preliminary findings provide a first step toward a deeper understanding of the complex cognitive mechanisms that underlie clinical reasoning and decision-making in the operating room. Future studies should further explore this topic, especially the relationship between the occurrence of intraoperative cognitive biases and postoperative surgical outcomes. Additionally, the impact of metacognition strategies (e.g. debiasing training) on reducing the impact of cognitive bias and improving intraoperative performance should also be investigated.