Surgery
to inadvertent actions or slips. At-risk behaviour involves taking shortcuts or risks without full awareness of potential consequences. Reckless behaviour, by contrast, represents a conscious disregard for substantial risk.1 Retributive approaches that focus primarily on punishment may satisfy demands for accountability but often undermine reporting and learning. Clinicians become reluctant to disclose mistakes or near misses if they fear professional or legal repercussions. Restorative approaches aim instead to understand the system conditions that shaped behaviour, while still maintaining appropriate accountability. In perioperative settings, this cultural shift supports practices such as open morbidity and mortality meetings, confidential incident reporting, and psychologically safe debriefings. The key investigative question becomes not “Who failed?” but “How did this make sense at the time?” and “What conditions increased the likelihood of this outcome?”.1 Importantly, a just culture does not eliminate
responsibility. Rather, it situates responsibility within a broader organisational context. Competence is not simply an individual attribute but is, instead, supported through training systems, organisational design, regulatory oversight, and professional culture throughout a clinician’s career.4
Legal accountability and system reform The relationship between organisational culture and accountability is shaped by legal frameworks. Historically, aspects of public healthcare in the United Kingdom operated under Crown immunity, which limited the prosecution of state bodies. The removal of this protection under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 required NHS organisations to comply with the same statutory health and safety standards as private organisations. This shift marked an important transformation in public healthcare governance. NHS institutions became accountable corporate actors subject to regulatory oversight and legal responsibility for safety management. In response, the concept of clinical governance emerged, embedding risk management, clinical audit, professional development, and patient involvement within organisational structures. External oversight mechanisms strengthened
this framework. The Health and Safety Executive gained inspection powers, including the ability to issue improvement notices and Crown Censure. The Care Quality Commission became responsible for assessing and rating healthcare organisations based on safety and quality standards.
18
www.clinicalservicesjournal.com I April 2026
Professional regulators such as the General Medical Council, the Nursing and Midwifery Council, and the Health and Care Professions Council expanded their fitness-to-practise processes, reinforcing individual accountability alongside organisational responsibility. The creation of the Healthcare Safety
Investigation Branch further emphasised system- level learning. By focusing on underlying systemic contributors rather than immediate blame, such investigations aim to generate insights that can improve safety across the healthcare system. These developments illustrate that managing uncertainty in surgery is not solely a clinical challenge. It is also an organisational and regulatory one. Patient safety depends not only on professional competence but also on governance structures that promote learning, transparency, and accountability.4
Safety beyond the absence of harm Safety is often interpreted as the absence of adverse events. However, periods without visible harm do not necessarily indicate safe systems. They may reflect temporary alignment of conditions, statistical variation, or underreporting. True safety is dynamic and reflects what clinicians and organisations do daily to manage hazards and protect patients.3 Human error becomes particularly dangerous when it coincides with high-risk moments or irreversible actions. Surgery contains numerous such points: induction of anaesthesia, surgical incision, administration of high-alert medications, implant placement, and final instrument counts. At these points, small deviations can have significant consequences. Many safety interventions remain reactive rather than proactive. In perioperative care, anticipating risk and embedding safeguards at critical steps are essential strategies.
Risk-based thinking and critical steps Risk-based thinking provides a structured method for managing uncertainty in complex environments. Rather than attempting to eliminate all error, organisations identify “critical steps” – points in a process where incorrect action could lead directly to serious harm.2 The World Health Organization (WHO) surgical safety checklist attempts to cover some critical steps in perioperative practice, such as implant positioning and final instrument and swab counts. There continues to be room for further exploration regarding the overall effectiveness of these steps in perioperative practice. Human beings cannot maintain peak vigilance continuously. Risk-based thinking therefore
concentrates attention at critical moments where consequences are most severe. These “points of no return” represent locations where structured checks, communication pauses, or technological safeguards can significantly reduce risk.2
Muschara’s principles emphasise
the predictability of errors, human fallibility, and the importance of organisational design in shaping outcomes. Persistent safety problems often reflect deeper systemic conditions rather than individual negligence.2
Non-technical skills and adaptive capacity Technical expertise alone cannot ensure safe surgical practice. Non-technical skills — cognitive and social abilities that complement technical expertise — play a critical role in managing uncertainty.5
Key competencies include situation
awareness, communication, leadership, teamwork, and decision-making. High-performing teams anticipate potential failures and respond effectively when conditions change. Simulation training, crisis rehearsal, structured briefings, and post-procedure debriefings enhance these adaptive capabilities.5
The illusion and utility of zero The aspiration of “zero harm” holds strong ethical appeal. At its core, managing uncertainty in surgery is an ethical endeavour. The commitment to “first do no harm” coexists with the reality that invasive intervention always carries risk. Certain adverse events, such as wrong-site surgery or retained instruments, are theoretically preventable. However, in complex adaptive systems, complete elimination of error is unrealistic.3 An uncompromising interpretation of zero harm can create fear-based cultures, suppress reporting, and undermine organisational learning.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84
