Self-report instruments are valuable when the aim is to assess the overall cognitive load in different surgical procedures and assess learning curves within competence-based surgical education. When the aim is to assess cognitive load related to specific operative stages, real-time tools should be used, as they allow capture of cognitive load fluctuation. A combination of both subjective and objective methods might provide optimal measurement of surgeons' cognition.

A growing number of studies have attempted to apply ML techniques to physician competence assessment. Although many studies have investigated the feasibility of certain techniques, more validation research is needed. The use of ML techniques may have the potential to integrate and analyze pragmatic information that could be used in real-time assessments and interventions.

Background As surgical systems are forced to adapt and respond to new challenges, so should the patient safety tools within those systems. We sought to determine how the WHO SSC might best be adapted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods 18 Panelists from five continents and multiple clinical specialties participated in a three-round modified Delphi technique to identify potential recommendations, assess agreement with proposed recommendations and address items not meeting consensus. Results From an initial 29 recommendations identified in the first round, 12 were identified for inclusion in the second round. After discussion of recommendations without consensus for inclusion or exclusion, four additional recommendations were added for an eventual 16 recommendations. Nine of these recommendations were related to checklist content, while seven recommendations were related to implementation. Conclusions This multinational panel has identified 16 recommendations for sites looking to use the surgical safety checklist during the COVID-19 pandemic. These recommendations provide an example of how the SSC can adapt to meet urgent and emerging needs of surgical systems by targeting important processes and encouraging critical discussions.

No abstract

Background: Long-duration exploration missions (LDEMs), such as voyages to Mars, will present unique medical challenges for astronaut crews, including communication delays and the inability to return to Earth early. Medical events threaten crewmember lives and increase the risk of mission failure. Managing a range of potential medical events will require excellent technical and nontechnical skills (NTSs). We sought to identify medical events with potential for rescue, range them according to the potential impact on crew health and mission success during LDEMs, and develop a list of NTSs to train for management of in-flight medical events. Materials and methods: Twenty-eight subject matter experts with specializations in surgery, medicine, trauma, spaceflight operations, NTS training, simulation, human factors, and organizational psychology completed online surveys followed by a 2-d in-person workshop. They identified and rated medical events for survivability, mission impact, and impact of crewmember NTSs on outcomes in space. Results: Sudden cardiac arrest, smoke inhalation, toxic exposure, seizure, and penetrating eye injury emerged as events with the highest potential mission impact, greatest potential for survival, and that required excellent NTS for successful management. Key NTS identified to target in training included information exchange, supporting behavior, communication delivery, and team leadership/followership. Conclusions: With a planned Mars mission on the horizon, training countermeasures need to be developed in the next 3-5 y. These results may inform policy, selection, medical

A. Impact of teamwork and communication training interventions on safety culture and patient safety in emergency departments: a systematic review.

Simulation-based OR team-training programs provide opportunities for NTS development and reflection by participants. Future programs could benefit from involving the full range of disciplines and professions that compose an OR team, as well as increased use of validated assessment instruments.

BackgroundIntensive care unit (ICU) admission triage is performed routinely and is often based solely on clinical judgment, which could mask biases. A computerized algorithm to aid ICU triage decisions was developed to classify patients into the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s prioritization system. In this study, we sought to evaluate the reliability and validity of this algorithm.MethodsNine senior physicians evaluated forty clinical vignettes based on real patients. The reference standard was defined as the priorities ascribed by two investigators with full access to patients’ records. Agreement of algorithm-based priorities with the reference standard and with intuitive priorities provided by the physicians were evaluated. Correlations between algorithm prioritization and physicians’ judgment of the appropriateness of ICU admissions in scarcity and nonscarcity settings were also evaluated. Validity was further assessed by retrospectively applying this algorithm to 603 patients with requests for ICU admission for association with clinical outcomes.ResultsAgreement between algorithm-based priorities and the reference standard was substantial, with a median κ of 0.72 (interquartile range [IQR] 0.52–0.77). Algorithm-based priorities demonstrated higher interrater reliability (overall κ 0.61, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.57–0.65; median percentage agreement 0.64, IQR 0.59–0.70) than physicians’ intuitive prioritization (overall κ 0.51, 95 % CI 0.47–0.55; median percentage agreement 0.49, IQR 0.44–0.56) (p = 0.001). Algorithm-based priorities were also associated with physicians’ judgment of appropriateness of ICU admission (priorities 1, 2, 3, and 4 vignettes would be admitted to the last ICU bed in 83.7 %, 61.2 %, 45.2 %, and 16.8 % of the scenarios, respectively; p < 0.001) and with actual ICU admission, palliative care consultation, and hospital mortality in the retrospective cohort.ConclusionsThis ICU admission triage algorithm demonstrated good reliability and validity. However, more studies are needed to evaluate a difference in benefit of ICU admission justifying the admission of one priority stratum over the others.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-016-1262-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.