{"id":829,"date":"2026-07-23T07:15:54","date_gmt":"2026-07-23T07:15:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/hjs.gr\/?p=829"},"modified":"2026-07-23T11:42:06","modified_gmt":"2026-07-23T11:42:06","slug":"62-3-2-2-2-2-6","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hjs.gr\/?p=829","title":{"rendered":"Threats to surgical decision-making in a crisis"},"content":{"rendered":"

Brief Communication<\/span><\/p>\n

Hell J Surg. 2025 Apr-Jun;95(5):103\u2013106
\ndoi: 10.59869\/25069<\/span><\/p>\n

Surajit Bhattacharya1<\/sup>, Kaushik Bhattacharya2<\/sup><\/p>\n

1<\/sup>MS M.Ch (Plastic Surgery), Consultant Plastic Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery, Ajanta Hospital, Lucknow, India,
\n2<\/sup>MS DNB MNAMS FAIS FACS FRCS (Glasg) FRCS (Edin), Associate Professor, Department of Surgery, Mata Gujri Memorial Medical College and LSK Hospital, Kishanganj, Bihar, India<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Correspondence:\u00a0 <\/em>Dr. Surajit Bhattacharya, C 907, Mahanagar, Sector-B, Lucknow 226006, India, e-mail: surajitbh@yahoo.co.in<\/a><\/p>\n

\n
Abstract<\/strong><\/h5>\n

Surgical decision-making is a complex, high-stakes process requiring a blend of clinical expertise, emotional regulation, situational awareness, and rapid judgment. Like pilots, surgeons often rely on both established protocols and instinct when navigating crisis situations. While structured frameworks\u2014such as \u201cAvoid, Trap, Mitigate\u201d\u2014enhance decision quality, emotional factors like hunger, anger, loneliness, tiredness, pain, and stress (HALT-PS) can significantly impair judgment. These emotions may cause errors of omission, commission, or flawed planning, contributing to surgical complications or \u201cNever Events.\u201d Simulation-based training, team communication, and adaptive protocols derived from aviation have been shown to enhance crisis performance and mitigate human error. Over-reliance on technology without contingency planning, such as robotic tools, further jeopardises outcomes. Ultimately, the surgeon bears the burden of decisions that can determine life or death. Recognising and mitigating emotional and systemic vulnerabilities is vital for safe, patient-centred surgical care.<\/p>\n

Key Words: <\/em><\/strong>Decision making, emotions, patient safety<\/p>\n

\n

Submission: 26.07.2025, Acceptance: 21.04.2026<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
Introduction<\/strong><\/h5>\n

The basic guideline is \u201cwould you have this done to yourself, your wife, your child, your parent?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Mark M. Ravitch<\/strong> (1910\u20131989)<\/p>\n

Surgical decision-making involves a systematic approach to evaluating clinical scenarios, utilising evidence-based guidelines, and considering various factors to ensure optimal patient outcomes. It is a critical process that encompasses the evaluation of patient conditions, the selection of appropriate surgical interventions, and the management of potential risks and complications. It is guided by evidence-based practices and protocols that enable surgeons to navigate complex clinical scenarios effectively. However, there are crisis occasions when a surgeon often goes by their \u2018gut feeling,\u2019 which have a foundation in their training and experience, and yet are substantially emotional. Pilots, too at times confront crisis occasions when they act on their gut instincts and on January 15, 2009, Chesley Sullenberger and First Officer Jeffrey Skiles managed to land US Airways flight 1549 on the Hudson River and save 150 lives. Both pilots and surgeons must make rapid, high-stakes decisions during unexpected emergencies\u2014such as engine failure mid-flight or sudden hemorrhage during surgery. These situations demand exceptional situational awareness, mental resilience, and the ability to prioritise under pressure. Both rely on extensive training, protocols, and experience, but also need adaptability when standard procedures fall short. Surgeons make complex, individual decisions during procedures, impacting a single patient, while pilots make critical decisions in a dynamic environment, potentially affecting many lives.\u00a0Both professions, however, are\u00a0vulnerable to errors due to fatigue, stress, and cognitive biases.<\/p>\n

Human factors in Surgical response<\/strong><\/p>\n

Simulation-based training in both fields enhances cognitive flexibility and crisis response. Real-time data, teamwork, and calm leadership are critical to minimising harm. The shared emphasis on non-technical skills and structured responses underpins their ability to perform life-saving decisions within seconds. A study recommended the \u2018Patient, Procedure, People\u2019 protocol, a tool adapted from aviation threat and error management training. It allows surgical teams to improve situational awareness, effective communication, flatten hierarchical gradients, and improve decision-making before responding to critical events [1]. The study found poor decision-making, with resulting errors due to tunnel vision, acute stress reactions (fight\u2013flight or freeze\u2013hide) and limbic hijacking (surprise and startle events). Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) concluded that fatal accidents are frequently caused by pilots flying outside their own personal limits, those of the aircraft, or the environment. Similarly, for a surgeon, patient morbidity or mortality may occur if they work outside their personal capability, with poor procedure selection and patient optimisation, or with a team or theatre environment not suited to the procedure [2]. For the surgeon, another aspect of poor decision making is too much dependence on the surgical tool, like a robot or laparoscope, without an alternative bailout option applied, as described by Abraham Maslow\u00a0 as the \u201claw of the instrument\u201d or\u00a0\u201cMaslow\u2019s hammer\u201d as \u201cit is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail\u201d [3]. Both pilots and surgeons must make critical decisions under pressure, but their approaches and priorities differ.\u00a0Pilots rely on established protocols and automation, aiming to maintain situational awareness and anticipate potential problems.\u00a0Surgeons, while also valuing situational awareness, may need to act more rapidly in life-threatening situations, sometimes improvising based on their expertise and the specific context.<\/p>\n

Surgeons sometimes make terrible decisions when they rely solely on their emotions, which can sometimes change in the blink of an eye, along with the justifications for the actions they\u2019ve taken or the merits of certain actions. This is because strong emotions intensely focus our thinking and neutralise the influence of other inputs from the environment, logic, various reminders, and past decisions. The evidence-based crisis management framework in surgery has been based on the commercial aviation industry policy of \u201cAvoid, Trap, and Mitigate.\u201dAvoid prevents harm through preparation; Trap corrects emerging failures; Mitigate contains crises to stabilise situations, prioritising safety, teamwork, and critical decision-making [4].<\/p>\n

In surgery, decision-making situations come with alarming regularity. There are life-or-limb-threatening situations that a surgeon encounters often, and every time he\/she is challenged to make a correct decision, because the alternative can prove to be costly for the patient. So, should a particular trauma patient be sent to the operating theatre for early surgery or to radiology for an accurate diagnosis, can a pregnant woman wait for a normal delivery or be taken for a Cesarean section, should this dismembered lower limb be sacrificed or replanted are decisions which a surgeon is expected to take almost every day. Yes, they are trained to do so, and yes, there are Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and, most importantly, there is Artificial Intelligence (AI) to fall back upon today, but the ultimate responsibility is that of the surgeon.<\/p>\n

However, there are times when we falter, and make a wrong decision, usually by bypassing the SOPs. Why do you think this happens? Over the years, we have, from our experience, realised that six human emotions are the real culprits. We must be aware of them and know how to neutralise them to improve our decision making.<\/p>\n

Ken Shubin Stein, who started as a professor at Columbia University Graduate School of Business, then decided to become a neurologist to know how the mind works, uses the acronym HALT-PS<\/strong>\u00a0to describe these six factors that impair our judgment [5]. These are:<\/p>\n

H<\/strong>unger
\nA<\/strong>nger
\nL<\/strong>oneliness
\nT<\/strong>iredness
\nP<\/strong>ain
\nS<\/strong>tress<\/p>\n

These six emotions are a big stop sign. They shouldn\u2019t be ignored lest we end up with a surgical complication due to a human error (act of commission<\/em>,\u00a0act of omission<\/em>,\u00a0error of execution<\/em>, and\u00a0error of planning<\/em>), communication error, system failure, or equipment failure [6].There are experiences from everyday life that clearly prove that these six emotions are real culprits in decision-making, and yet are not always clearly linked to bad decision-making. These six emotions somehow don\u2019t allow us to see the full picture, which probably includes many important details and many different facets. For instance, having interrupted his dinner a surgical registrar might have to rush to attend a head injury patient but while doing a detailed neurological examination and establishing the Glasgow Coma Scale score, he is still remembering the dinner that awaits him in his cabin, and in this rush forgets to examine the abdomen and so misses a solid organ trauma, which is the cause of shock! He is trained to examine the entire patient, but hunger has clouded his decision-making. There is a current lack of robust evidence and empirical data\u00a0directly linking specific interventions like the proposed HALT-PS to a quantitative reduction in actual surgical errors. Research in this area often highlights the systemic challenges in tracking and reporting surgical error data and acknowledges that many widely used safety protocols, such as the Universal Protocol, have not been evaluated through randomised controlled studies with actual patient outcomes.<\/p>\n

A surgical \u201cNever Event\u201d is a preventable error occurring immediately before, during, or immediately following surgery and to prevent \u2018Never Event\u2019,\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cone size fits all\u201d safety approach should not be the dictum and each Operating Room should perform a risk assessment relative to the occurrence of Never Events during a specific surgery and make tailored adjustments in the safety standards [7].<\/p>\n

Framework and analogy from the aviation industry<\/strong><\/p>\n

Literature always compares the role of surgeons versus pilots whenever there is a crash or accident, but the fact remains that excessive use of the aviation-healthcare safety paradigm in surgery can lead to misleading generalisations and end-user disengagement. Both pilots and surgeons are trained professionals, but a surgical operation is more variable and volatile than aeronautical engineering without any radar or sophisticated gadgets for turbulence control or bailout option in the middle of the surgical procedure when the patient bleeds or gasps, making the surgeon\u2019s job highly risky, hazardous, challenging, and unpredictable [8]. The best protocol for a surgeon to follow in a crisis is probably the SHELL model, which was originally developed for aviation human factors analysis. The SHELL model in surgery emphasises interaction between Software (protocols, checklists), Hardware (equipment), Environment (light, noise), and Liveware\u2014both individual (surgeon, anaesthetist) and group (team dynamics). It highlights how human factors influence performance, decision-making, and patient safety within the complex environment of the operating theatre, promoting systems-based surgical safety [9].<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Figure 1.<\/strong> Key frameworks (HALT-PS, Avoid\u2013Trap\u2013Mitigate, SHELL) and their application to surgery.<\/span><\/p>\n

Practical Recommendations for Surgeons<\/strong><\/p>\n

In a nutshell, hunger, anger, loneliness, tiredness, pain, and stress are the emotions that are most dangerous to our decision-making, and for a surgeon, they may prove fatal. It\u2019s not always possible to assess their impact on us before making important decisions, but it\u2019s worth trying, and over time, we can develop greater awareness of these emotions and be able to avoid decisions that we might regret later. Remember, being aware of these emotions doesn\u2019t mean they\u2019ll disappear, and it\u2019s very hard to neutralise them without taking action. So, if necessary, it is better for the surgeon to go for healthy food to combat hunger, call a loved one for a short conversation, lie down for a half-hour rest, or take any similar action to ensure he is the mental state that allows him to make the best decisions.<\/p>\n

The cognitive engineering strategies for surgical error management in cardiothoracic surgery are task shedding (task shedding involves deliberately reducing or deferring less critical tasks when cognitive load is high, for example, during a cardiac arrest or unexpected bleeding), intelligent interruption systems (interruptions during surgery (e.g., phone calls, monitor alarms, or conversations) can disrupt concentration and cause mistakes. Intelligent systems ensure that only essential alerts reach the surgeon during critical phases), sterile cockpit (borrowed from aviation, the \u201csterile cockpit\u201d rule limits nonessential communication during high-risk periods of surgery), short breaks (a\u00a0 2\u20133 minute \u201cmicrobreak\u201d during long valve repairs helps maintain steady hands and sharper decision-making, preventing fatigue-related errors), team strengthening (enhances coordination, mutual trust, and error recovery. Teams that communicate effectively can recognise and correct small errors before they escalate), pre-incision time-out (ensures shared situational awareness and prevents \u201cwrong site\u201d or \u201cwrong patient\u201d errors), safety systems for device interoperability (integrating and coordinating multiple devices (anesthesia monitors, bypass machines, defibrillators, etc.) to share data and avoid conflicting outputs), workload-adaptive associate systems (these are smart, artificial intelligence -assisted systems that dynamically adjust assistance levels based on the surgeon\u2019s or team\u2019s workload.), and cognitive aids for high-risk\/low-frequency situations (structured checklists, flowcharts, or digital prompts that guide decision-making in rare but dangerous situations) [10].<\/p>\n

C<\/strong>onclusion<\/strong><\/h5>\n

Surgical decision-making in crisis situations demands not only clinical expertise but also emotional intelligence and situational awareness. While structured frameworks like \u201cAvoid, Trap, Mitigate\u201d and models such as SHELL enhance safety, the influence of human emotions\u2014hunger, anger, loneliness, tiredness, pain, and stress\u2014can compromise judgment and lead to preventable errors or \u201cNever Events.\u201d Recognising and addressing these vulnerabilities through simulation-based training, effective communication, and self-awareness is crucial. Surgeons must balance technology, protocol, and intuition while maintaining composure under pressure. Ultimately, safeguarding patient outcomes depends on integrating technical proficiency with emotional resilience and sound cognitive control during crisis decision-making.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is preferable to use superior judgment to avoid having to use superior skills<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n

Conflict of Interest<\/strong><\/h5>\n

Nil<\/em><\/p>\n

Funding Obtained<\/strong><\/h5>\n

Nil<\/em><\/p>\n

Authors Contribution<\/strong><\/h5>\n

Conception and design of the study \u2013 Surajit, Kaushik. Acquisition of data- Surajit, Kaushik. Drafting of the article \u2013 Surajit. Critical revising \u2013 Kaushik. Final approval- Surajit, Kaushik<\/em><\/p>\n

R<\/strong>eferences<\/strong><\/h5>\n
    \n
  1. Hardie JA, Hunn D, Mitchell TE, Brennan PA. Patient, Procedure, People (PPP): Recognising and responding to intraoperative critical events. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2022 Jun;104(6):409-13. Doi: 10.1308\/rcsann.2021.0193<\/li>\n
  2. Hardie JA, Brennan PA. The personal limitations checklist: human factors insights from air accidents to reduce intraoperative harm. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021 Oct;59(8):853-7. Doi: 10.1016\/j.bjoms.2020.12.007<\/li>\n
  3. McDonald WM. The problem with maslow\u2019s hammer. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2022 Dec;30(12):1324-6. Doi: 10.1016\/j.jagp.2022.06.002<\/li>\n
  4. Gogalniceanu PM, Karydis N, Loukopoulos I, Kessaris N, Sevdalis N, Mamode N. Avoid, trap, and mitigate: Development of an evidence-based crisis management framework in surgery. J Am Coll Surg. 2021 Oct;233(4):526-36.e1. Doi:10.1016\/j.jamcollsurg.2021.06.010<\/li>\n
  5. Wilson C. 6 emotions that can cloud our judgment and how to make better decisions [Internet]. Tiny Buddha; [cited 2025 Jul 25]. Available from: https:\/\/tinybuddha.com\/blog\/6-emotions-that-can-cloud-our-judgment-and-how-to-make-better-decisions\/<\/a><\/li>\n
  6. Kumar J, Raina R. \u2018Never Events in Surgery\u2019: Mere Error or an Avoidable Disaster. Indian J Surg. 2017 Jun;79(3):238-44. Doi: 10.1007\/s12262-017-1620-4<\/li>\n
  7. Arad D, Rosenfeld A, Magnezi R. Factors contributing to preventing operating room \u201cnever events\u201d: a machine learning analysis. Patient Saf Surg. 2023 Mar;17(1):6. Doi: 10.1186\/s13037-023-00356-x<\/li>\n
  8. Gogalniceanu P, Calder F, Callaghan C, Sevdalis N, Mamode N. Surgeons are not pilots: Is the aviation safety paradigm relevant to modern surgical practice? J Surg Educ. 2021 Sep-Oct;78(5):1393-9. Doi: 10.1016\/j.jsurg.2021.01.016<\/li>\n
  9. Ahmed H, Scott A. Pilot training and surgical education: flying towards a brighter future. Postgrad Med J. 2021 Jun;97(1148):345-8. Doi: 10.1136\/postgradmedj-2020-138966<\/li>\n
  10. Zenati MA, Kennedy-Metz L, Dias RD. Cognitive engineering to improve patient safety and outcomes in cardiothoracic surgery. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020;32(1):1-7. Doi: 10.1053\/j.semtcvs.2019.10.011<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Brief Communication Hell J Surg. 2025 Apr-Jun;95(5):103\u2013106 doi: 10.59869\/25069 Surajit Bhattacharya1, Kaushik Bhattacharya2 1MS M.Ch (Plastic Surgery), Consultant Plastic Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery, Ajanta Hospital, Lucknow, India, 2MS DNB MNAMS FAIS FACS FRCS (Glasg) FRCS (Edin), Associate Professor, Department of Surgery, Mata Gujri Memorial Medical College and LSK Hospital, Kishanganj, Bihar, India<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[259],"tags":[286,287,288],"class_list":["post-829","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-volume-95-2025-issue-2","tag-decision-making","tag-emotions","tag-patient-safety"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/hjs.gr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/829","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/hjs.gr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/hjs.gr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hjs.gr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hjs.gr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=829"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/hjs.gr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/829\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":894,"href":"https:\/\/hjs.gr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/829\/revisions\/894"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/hjs.gr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=829"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hjs.gr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=829"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hjs.gr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=829"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}