↓ Skip to main content

Operating lists are created by rational algorithms and use of power. What can a social scientific view offer surgeons?

Overview of attention for article published in Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Operating lists are created by rational algorithms and use of power. What can a social scientific view offer surgeons?
Published in
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery, October 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00423-016-1516-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carsten Engelmann, Gudela Grote, Siegfried Geyer, Dzifa Ametowobla

Abstract

Algorithms for surgical operation planning are evidence-based. However, choices sometimes have to be made between medically equal solutions e.g. for staffing of sought-after operations. Such decisions are heavily influenced by micropolitics and power. The article examines the array of highly manipulated processes around operation theatre allocation of convenient time slots or staff, which play out in various ways in all of the world's main regional surgical cultures. Essay supported by empiric data from an ethnographic power-analysis targeted to senior executive surgeons. Operations were categorized into "Interesting" (i.e. career-promoting) and "Uninteresting" (i.e. routine) operations. Fifty nine executives responded. Only one respondent contested the categorization of operations into Interesting and Uninteresting. The two categories were staffed according to significantly different criteria (p < 0.05). These were classified as Rational (e.g. "surgical expertise"), Social (e.g. "equity"), and Political (e.g. "status"). For Interesting operations, Rational criteria were deemed most relevant, while for the Uninteresting operations "equity" was ranked top. Moreover, we found significant differences between surgeons' and external observers' (experienced clerical and nursing staff) assessments of staffing decisions, the latter ranking Political motives higher. Decisions were almost exclusively negotiated among surgeons. 33% of respondents said they used subterfuges such as withholding information, incorrect duration-statements, and barter arrangements to defuse possible conflicts. Operating Lists are not merely the product of rational resource optimization. This article demonstrates the methodic feasibility of academic investigation into the typically tacit micro-political mechanisms in List-making. Developing such research further may potentially concern the practice and outcome of surgery.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Other 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Researcher 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 12 46%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Engineering 2 8%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 14 54%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 October 2016.
All research outputs
#20,346,264
of 22,893,031 outputs
Outputs from Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery
#879
of 1,130 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#276,800
of 319,861 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery
#12
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,893,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,130 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 319,861 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.