Journal of Health Sciences & Surveillance System

Numerical Values for the Environmental Factors’ Influence on Surgeons’ Technical Performance Decrement: Spherical Fuzzy-SWARA Approach

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Khalil Taherzadeh Chenani 1
Somayeh Bolghanabadi 1
Zahra Zamanian 2
Mohammad Hashemi 1

1 Student Research Committee, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

2 Department of Occupational Health and Safety Engineering, School of Health, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

10.30476/jhsss.2024.100462.1837
Abstract
Background: Surgical practices are critical activities within healthcare systems, and when human error (HE) occurs, the consequences can be irreparable. However, the literature on HE quantification reveals significant gaps in both structural and methodological approaches. This study aimed to suggest a new taxonomy of environmental influencing factors (EIFs) that impact surgeons’ technical performance.
Methods: In this cross-sectional study, EIFs related to the operating room were selected by reviewing various literature. Structured expert judgment elicitation was used to validate the EIFs under consideration. The weight and negative impact rate of the EIFs during surgical processes on surgeons were quantified using the spherical fuzzy-SWARA (Step-wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis) method and an elevenpoint numerical scale, respectively. Questionnaires from expert surgeons were employed to quantify the weight and negative impact rate of the EIFs.
Results: The taxonomy of nine EIFs was validated through individual interviews with surgeons from three regional hospitals. The ranking of the influence of EIFs showed some conflicts regarding weight and negative impact rate. Specifically, climate conditions and music received the highest and lowest grades in both weight and negative impact rates.
Conclusion: The current study offers an original contribution to developing a new taxonomy based on domain-specific knowledge. The proposed EIFs taxonomy illustrates how surgeons’ reliability can be degraded qualitatively and quantitatively. Furthermore, the results could enhance patient safety programs in the operating room.

Highlights

Khalil Taherzadeh Chenani (Google Scholar)

Somayeh Bolghanabadi (Google Scholar)

Keywords

Human reliability
Operating room
Physical agents
Surgical Errors
Work performance
  1. Reason J. Understanding adverse events: human factors. Qual Health Care. 1995; 4(2):80-89. doi: 10.1136/qshc.4.2.80. PMID: 10151618; PMCID: PMC1055294.
  2. Jahangiri M, Hoboubi N, Rostamabadi A, Keshavarzi S, Hosseini AA. Human error analysis in a permit to work system: a case study in a chemical plant. Saf Health Work. 2016; 7(1):6-11. doi: 10.1016/j.shaw.2015.06.002. PMID: 27014485 ; PMCID: PMC4792918.
  3. Carver N, Gupta V, Hipskind JE. Medical error. StatPearls [Internet]: StatPearls Publishing. 2021. PMID:
  4. Küng K, Carrel T, Wittwer B, Engberg S, Zimmermann N, Schwendimann R. Medication errors in a swiss cardiovascular surgery department: a cross-sectional study based on a novel medication error report method. Nurs Res Pract. 2013; 2013:1-6. doi: 10.1155/2013/671820. PMID: 23431431; PMCID: PMC3574748.
  5. Franciosi C, Di Pasquale V, Iannone R, Miranda S. A taxonomy of performance shaping factors for human reliability analysis in industrial maintenance. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management. 2019; 12(1):115-32. doi: 10.3926/jiem.2702.
  6. Donaldson MS, Corrigan JM, Kohn LT. To err is human: building a safer health system. 2000.
  7. Liu P, Qiu Y, Hu J, Tong J, Li Z, editors. Using expert judgments to estimate the multipliers of performance shaping factors in digital main control rooms of nuclear power plants. Proceedings of 13th international conference on probabilistic safety assessment and management (PSAM 13); 2016.
  8. Noroozi A, Khakzad N, Khan F, MacKinnon S, Abbassi R. The role of human error in risk analysis: Application to pre-and post-maintenance procedures of process facilities. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2013; 119:251-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2013.06.038.
  9. Deacon T, Amyotte P, Khan F, MacKinnon S. A framework for human error analysis of offshore evacuations. Saf Sci. 2013; 51(1):319-27. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2012.07.005.
  10. Carthey J. Implementing human factors in healthcare. How to guide—volume 2. Taking further steps. Clinical Human Factors Group. 2013; 2:1-59.
  11. Pan X, Wu Z. Performance shaping factors in the human error probability modification of human reliability analysis. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2020; 26(3):538-50. doi: 1080/10803548.2018.1498655. PMID: 30295571.
  12. Boring RL, Blackman HS, editors. The origins of the SPAR-H method’s performance shaping factor multipliers. 2007 IEEE 8th human factors and power plants and HPRCT 13th annual meeting; 2007: IEEE. doi: 1109/HFPP.2007.4413202.
  13. Williams JC, Bell JL, editors. Consolidation of the error producing conditions used in the Human Error Assessment and Reduction Technique (HEART). Saf Reliab. 2015; 35(3):26-76. doi: 1080/09617353.2015.11691047.
  14. Bedford T, Bayley C, Revie M. Screening, sensitivity, and uncertainty for the CREAM method of Human Reliability Analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2013; 115:100-10. doi: 1016/j.ress.2013.02.011.
  15. Onofrio R, Trucco P. Human reliability analysis (HRA) in surgery: Identification and assessment of Influencing Factors. Saf Sci. 2018; 110:110-23. doi: 1016/j.ssci.2018.08.004.
  16. Kim Y, Park J, Jung W. A quantitative measure of fitness for duty and work processes for human reliability analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2017; 167:595-601. doi: 1016/j.ress.2017.07.012.
  17. Liu P, Lv X, Li Z, Qiu Y, Hu J, He J, editors. Conceptualizing performance shaping factors in main control rooms of nuclear power plants: a preliminary study. International Conference on Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics. 2016; 322-333. Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-40030-3_32.
  18. Schmidt JRA, Nogueira DJ, Nassar SM, Vaz VP, da Silva MLN, Vicentini DS, et al. Probabilistic model for assessing occupational risk during the handling of nanomaterials. Nanotoxicology. 2020;14(9):1258-70. doi: 1080/17435390.2020.1815094. PMID: 32909501.
  19. Cooke RM, Probst KN. Highlights of the expert judgment policy symposium and technical workshop: Resources for the Future Washington, DC; 2006.
  20. Keršuliene V, Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z. Selection of rational dispute resolution method by applying new step‐wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA). Journal of business economics and management. 2010;11(2):243-58.
  21. Mahmood T, Ullah K, Khan Q, Jan N. An approach toward decision-making and medical diagnosis problems using the concept of spherical fuzzy sets. Neural Comput Appl. 2019; 31:7041-53. doi: 10.1007/s00521-018-3521-2.
  22. Abdulkareem HG, Erzaij KR. A spherical fuzzy AHP model for contractor assessment during project life cycle. J Mech Behav Mater. 2022; 31(1):369-80. doi: 10.1515/jmbm-2022-0042.
  23. Ma L, Ma X, Xing P, Yu F. A hybrid approach based on the HFACS-FBN for identifying and analysing human factors for fire and explosion accidents in the laboratory. JJ Loss Prev Process Ind. 2022; 75:104675. doi: 1016/j.jlp.2021.104675.
  24. Kuzu AC, Akyuz E, Arslan O. Application of fuzzy fault tree analysis (FFTA) to maritime industry: a risk analysing of ship mooring operation. Ocean Engineering. 2019; 179:128-34. doi: 1016/j.oceaneng.2019.03.029.
  25. Senol YE, Aydogdu YV, Sahin B, Kilic I. Fault tree analysis of chemical cargo contamination by using fuzzy approach. Expert Syst Appl. 2015; 42(12):5232-44. doi: 1016/j.eswa.2015.02.027.
  26. Taş MA, Çakır E, Ulukan Z. Spherical fuzzy swara-marcos approach for green supplier selection. 3C Tecnologia. 2021; 115-33. doi: 10.17993/3ctecno.2021.specialissue7.115-133.
  27. Chenani KT, Nodoushan RJ, Jahangiri M, Madadizadeh F, Fallah H. Quantification of the Impact of Factors Affecting the Technical Performance of Operating Room Personnel: Expert Judgment Approach. 2021; 41(4):9-16. doi: /10.1002/jhrm.21497.
  28. Santell JP. Medication errors: experience of the United States Pharmacopeia (USP). Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety. 2005; 31(2):114-9. doi: 1016/S1553-7250(05)31016-6. PMID: 15791771
  29. Kirwan B. A guide to practical human reliability assessment: CRC press; 1994. doi: 1201/9781315136349 .
  30. Walls L, Revie M, Bedford T. Risk, Reliability and Safety: Innovating Theory and Practice: Proceedings of ESREL 2016 (Glasgow, Scotland, 25-29 September 2016): CRC Press; 2016.
  31. Chenani KT, Nodoushan RJ, Jahangiri M, Madadizadeh F, Fallah H. Adaptation of the standardized plant analysis–risk human reliability analysis technique for the surgical setting: expert judgment approach. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2022; 23(1):1-8. doi: 1080/10803548.2021.2018856. PMID: 35067215.
  32. Metso L, Marttonen S, Thenent NE, Newnes LB. Adapting the SHEL model in investigating industrial maintenance. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering. 2016; 22(1): 62-80. doi: 1108/JQME-12-2014-0059.
  33. Kim JW, Jung W. A taxonomy of performance influencing factors for human reliability analysis of emergency tasks. J Loss Prev Process Ind. 2003; 16(6):479-95. doi: 1016/S0950-4230(03)00075-5.
  34. Kutlu Gündoğdu F, Kahraman C, editors. Spherical fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and its application to industrial robot selection. Intelligent and Fuzzy Techniques in Big Data Analytics and Decision Making: Proceedings of the INFUS 2019 Conference, Istanbul, Turkey, July 23-25. 2019: 988-996. Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-23756-1_117.
Journal of Health Sciences & Surveillance System
Volume 13, Issue 1
Winter 2025
Pages 90-99

Home

Guide for Authors

Submit Manuscript

Guide for Reviewers

Contact Us

Forms