Free Access
J Extra Corpor Technol
Volume 46, Number 1, March 2014
Page(s) 7 - 14
Published online 15 March 2014
  1. Merry AF. Safer cardiac surgery. J Extra Corpor Technol. 2009;41:P43–P47. [Google Scholar]
  2. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS, eds. To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999. [Google Scholar]
  3. Gawande AA, Thomas EJ, Zinner MJ, Brennan TA. The incidence and nature of surgical adverse events in Colorado and Utah in 1992. Surgery. 1999;126:66–75. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Shahian DM, O’Brien SM, Sheng S, et al. Predictors of long-term survival after coronary artery bypass grafting surgery: Results from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database (the ASCERT study). Circulation. 2012;125:1491–1500. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Martinez EA, Shore A, Colantuoni E, et al. Cardiac surgery errors: Results from the UK National Reporting and Learning System. Int J Qual Health Care. 2011;23:151–158. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  7. Berwick DM, Nolan TW, Whittington J. The triple aim: Care, health, and cost. Health Aff. 2008;27:759–769. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. The Triple Aim. 2011. Available at: Accessed July 21, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  9. Leape LL, Berwick DM, Bates DW. What practices will most improve safety? Evidence-based medicine meets patient safety. JAMA. 2002;288:501–507. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Donabedian A. An Introduction to Quality Assurance in Health Care. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  11. Shekelle PG, Pronovost PJ, Wachter RM, et al. Advancing the science of patient safety. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154:693–696. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Classen DC, Pestotnik SL, Evans RS, Burke JP. Computerized surveillance of adverse drug events in hospital patients [Erratum appears in JAMA 1992 Apr 8;267(14):1922]. JAMA. 1991;266:2847–2851. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM, et al. Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients-Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:370–376. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Leape LL, Brennan TA, Laird N, et al. The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study II. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:377–384. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Rozich JD, Haraden CR, Resar RK. Adverse drug event trigger tool: A practical methodology for measuring medication related harm. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12:194–200. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Kang N, Tsang VT, Gallivan S, et al. Quality assurance in congenital heart surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2006;29:693–697. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. Chou DT, Achan P, Ramachandran M. The World Health Organization ‘5 moments of hand hygiene’: The scientific foundation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94:441–445. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. Mazzocco K, Petitti DB, Fong KT, et al. Surgical team behaviors and patient outcomes. Am J Surg. 2009;197:678–685. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. Lingard L, Espin S, Whyte S, et al. Communication failures in the operating room: An observational classification of recurrent types and effects. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004;13:330–334. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Wiegmann DA, ElBardissi AW, Dearani JA, Daly RC, Sundt TM3rd. Disruptions in surgical flow and their relationship to surgical errors: An exploratory investigation. Surgery. 2007;142:658–665. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. de Leval MR, Carthey J, Wright DJ, Farewell VT, Reason JT. Human factors and cardiac surgery: A multicenter study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000;119:661–672. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. Solis-Trapala IL, Carthey J, Farewell VT, de Leval MR. Dynamic modelling in a study of surgical error management. Stat Med. 2007;26:5189–5202. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. Mishra A, Catchpole K, McCulloch P. The Oxford NOTECHS System: Reliability and validity of a tool for measuring teamwork behaviour in the operating theatre. Qual Saf Health Care. 2009;18:104–108. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Wahr JA, Prager RL, Abernathy JH3rd, et al. Patient safety in the cardiac operating room: human factors and teamwork: A scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2013;128:1139–1169. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Martinez EA, Thompson DA, Errett NA, et al. High stakes and high risk: A focused qualitative review of hazards during cardiac surgery. Anesth Analg. 2011;112:1061–1074. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Gurses AP, Kim G, Martinez EA, et al. Identifying and categorising patient safety hazards in cardiovascular operating rooms using an interdisciplinary approach: A multisite study. BMJ Quality & Safety. 2012;21:810–818. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Salas E, DiazGranados D, Klein C, et al. Does team training improve team performance? A meta-analysis. Hum Factors. 2008;50:903–933. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Haynes AB, Weiser TG, Berry WR, et al. A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:491–499. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Neily J, Mills PD, Young-Xu Y, et al. Association between implementation of a medical team training program and surgical mortality. JAMA. 2010;304:1693–1700. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. de Vries EN, Prins HA, Crolla RMPH, et al. Effect of a comprehensive surgical safety system on patient outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:1928–1937. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Van Brabandt H, Neyt M, Hulstaert F. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI): Risky and costly. BMJ. 2012;345:e4710. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Hannan EL, Cozzens K, Samadashvili Z, et al. Appropriateness of coronary revascularization for patients without acute coronary syndromes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:1870–1876. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  33. Birkmeyer JD, Sharp SM, Finlayson SR, Fisher ES, Wennberg JE. Variation profiles of common surgical procedures. Surgery. 1998;124:917–923. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Catchpole KR, de Leval MR, McEwan A, et al. Patient handover from surgery to intensive care: Using Formula 1 pit-stop and aviation models to improve safety and quality. Paediatr Anaesth. 2007;17:470–478. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Salas E, Sims D, Burke C. Is there a “Big Five” in teamwork? Small Group Research. 2005;36:555–599. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  36. Burford B. Group processes in medical education: Learning from social identity theory. Med Educ. 2012;46:143–152. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  37. Hall P. Interprofessional teamwork: Professional cultures as barriers. J Interprof Care. 2005;19(suppl 1):188–196. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Weller J. Shedding new light on tribalism in health care. Med Educ. 2012;46:134–136. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  39. Kennedy I. Learning from Bristol: The Report of the Public Inquiry into Children’s Heart Surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary 1984–1995. London: The Stationery Office, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  40. Bleakley A. Social comparison, peer learning and democracy in medical education. Med Teach. 2010;32:878–879. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Pian-Smith MCM, Simon R, Minehart RD, et al. Teaching residents the two-challenge rule: A simulation-based approach to improve education and patient safety. Simulation in Healthcare. Journal of The Society for Medical Simulation. 2009;4:84–91. [Google Scholar]
  42. Joy BF, Elliott E, Hardy C, Sullivan C, Backer CL, Kane JM. Standardized multidisciplinary protocol improves handover of cardiac surgery patients to the intensive care unit. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2011;12:304–308. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Burtscher MJ, Kolbe M, Wacker J, Manser T. Interactions of team mental models and monitoring behaviors predict team performance in simulated anesthesia inductions. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2011;17:257–269. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Weller J, Frengley R, Torrie J, et al. Evaluation of an instrument to measure teamwork in multidisciplinary critical care teams. Qual Saf Health Care. 2011;20:216–222. [Google Scholar]
  45. Frengley RW, Weller JM, Torrie J, et al. The effect of a simulationbased training intervention on the performance of established critical care unit teams. Crit Care Med. 2011;39:2605–2611. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Ruel M, Labinaz M. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement: A cardiac surgeon and cardiologist team perspective. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2010;25:107–113. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Stevens L-M, Cooper JB, Raemer DB, et al. Educational program in crisis management for cardiac surgery teams including high realism simulation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;144:17–24. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  48. Haynes AB, Weiser TG, Berry WR, et al. A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:491–499. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Birkmeyer JD. Strategies for improving surgical quality-Checklists and beyond. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:1963–1965. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Curry LA, Spatz E, Cherlin E, et al. What distinguishes top-performing hospitals in acute myocardial infarction mortality rates? A qualitative study. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154:384–390. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Merry AF, Ramage MC, Whitlock RML, et al. First-time coronary artery bypass grafting: The anaesthetist as a risk factor. Br J Anaesth. 1992;68:6–12. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  52. Slogoff S, Keats AS. Does perioperative myocardial ischemia lead to postoperative myocardial infarction? Anesthesiology. 1985;62:107–114. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.