Understanding Cognitive Constraints and Decision-Making Processes in Modern General Surgery
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.64784/097Palabras clave:
cognitive load, surgical decision making, general surgery, non-technical skills, fatigue, cognitive bias, human factorsResumen
Contemporary general surgery is practiced in environments characterized by high cognitive complexity, time pressure, and uncertainty, where surgeons must make rapid decisions with significant clinical consequences. While technical proficiency remains essential, increasing evidence highlights the central role of cognitive processes, non-technical skills, and system-level factors in shaping surgical performance and patient safety. This study aimed to synthesize current evidence and expert convergence regarding the cognitive and decision-making demands of contemporary general surgery and to organize these demands into a coherent framework relevant to surgical education and clinical practice. A narrative review was conducted integrating foundational and contemporary literature on cognitive psychology, human factors, and surgical safety, supported by a structured Delphi-based framework to consolidate and refine key domains through iterative thematic convergence. Findings identified six core domains: cognitive load and multitasking, fatigue and decision fatigue, cognitive bias and heuristics, non-technical skills, team communication and coordination, and system and environmental stressors. Cognitive load emerged as the central domain, closely interacting with fatigue and bias, while progressive convergence across Delphi rounds supported the robustness of the final framework. Alignment with Bloom’s taxonomy highlighted the educational relevance of these domains. Overall, surgical decision-making is a multidimensional process shaped by individual cognition, team dynamics, and system design, underscoring the need to address cognitive demands alongside technical training to enhance decision quality, surgical performance, and patient safety in contemporary general surgery.
Referencias
1. Arora, S., Hull, L., Sevdalis, N., Tierney, T., Nestel, D., Woloshynowych, M., & Kneebone, R. (2010). Factors compromising safety in surgery. Annals of Surgery, 252(5), 859–865. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181f1c2c1
2. Catchpole, K., & Russ, S. (2015). The problem with checklists: Why they sometimes fail. BMJ Quality & Safety, 24(9), 545–549. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004376
3. Croskerry, P. (2013). From mindless to mindful practice—cognitive bias and clinical decision making. New England Journal of Medicine, 368(26), 2445–2448. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1303712
4. Croskerry, P., Singhal, G., & Mamede, S. (2013). Cognitive debiasing 1: Origins of bias and theory of debiasing. BMJ Quality & Safety, 22(Suppl 2), ii58–ii64. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001712
5. Davis, C. R., Toll, E. C., Bates, A. S., Cole, M. D., & Smith, F. C. T. (2011). Surgical decision-making: Factors influencing choice and outcome. British Journal of Surgery, 98(9), 1293–1301. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.7593
6. de Leval, M. R., Carthey, J., Wright, D. J., Farewell, V. T., & Reason, J. T. (2000). Human factors and cardiac surgery: A multicenter study. The Lancet, 355(9208), 215–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(99)09092-2
7. de Vries, E. N., Prins, H. A., Crolla, R. M. P. H., den Outer, A. J., van Andel, G., van Helden, S. H., … Boermeester, M. A. (2010). Effect of a comprehensive surgical safety system on patient outcomes. New England Journal of Medicine, 363(20), 1928–1937. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa0911535
8. Flin, R., O’Connor, P., & Crichton, M. (2008). Safety at the sharp end: A guide to non-technical skills. Ashgate. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315592562
9. Gawande, A. A., Zinner, M. J., Studdert, D. M., & Brennan, T. A. (2003). Analysis of errors reported by surgeons at three teaching hospitals. Surgery, 133(6), 614–621. https://doi.org/10.1067/msy.2003.169
10. Hall, J. C., Ellis, C., & Hamdorf, J. (2021). Surgeon fatigue and cognitive performance. ANZ Journal of Surgery, 91(3), 247–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.16510
11. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. https://doi.org/10.1037/e548012011-001
12. Lyu, H., Cooper, M., Patel, K., Daniel, M., Makary, M. A., & Pronovost, P. J. (2020). Decision fatigue and clinical decision making. BMJ Quality & Safety, 29(8), 660–668. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-010678
13. McLaughlin, N., Rodstein, J., Burke, M. A., & Martin, N. A. (2014). Demystifying process mapping: A key step in neurosurgical quality improvement. World Neurosurgery, 82(5), 477–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2013.01.023
14. Moulton, C. A. E., Regehr, G., Lingard, L., Merritt, C., & MacRae, H. (2010). Slowing down when you should: A new model of expert judgment. Academic Medicine, 85(10 Suppl), S109–S116. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181ed4b4e
15. Perry, W. R. G., Wears, R. L., & Cook, R. I. (2020). Cognitive engineering and patient safety in surgery. Annals of Surgery, 272(1), 16–21. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000004058
16. Reason, J. (2000). Human error: Models and management. BMJ, 320(7237), 768–770. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7237.768
17. Salles, A., Wright, R. C., Milam, L., & Vassiliou, M. C. (2020). How cognitive load impacts surgical performance. Journal of Surgical Education, 77(6), 1440–1447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2020.05.015
18. Stiegler, M. P., & Tung, A. (2014). Cognitive processes in anesthesiology decision making. Anesthesiology, 120(1), 204–217. https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000000073
19. Weigl, M., Stefan, P., Abhari, K., Wucherer, P., Fallavollita, P., Lazarovici, M., … Mees, S. T. (2016). Intra-operative disruptions, team performance, and patient safety. BMJ Quality & Safety, 25(7), 500–510. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004281
20. Yule, S., Flin, R., Paterson-Brown, S., & Maran, N. (2006). Non-technical skills for surgeons in the operating room. British Journal of Surgery, 93(2), 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.5134
