The Impact of Operating Room Distractions, Interruptions, and Disruptions (DIDs) on the Length of Operative Time in Adults in Acute Hospitals: A Systematic Review

The Operating Room Global Journal · Volume 2 · Issue 1
Systematic Review · Human Factors & Operating Room Safety

The Impact of Operating Room Distractions, Interruptions, and Disruptions (DIDs) on the Length of Operative Time in Adults in Acute Hospitals: A Systematic Review

Author

Adebusola Adenike Owokole1,2,3*

1 The Operating Room Global (TORG).

2 UL Hospitals Group, HSE Mid-West, Ireland.

3 University of Limerick, Ireland.

Corresponding Author Adebusola Adenike Owokole [email protected]

Abstract

A systematic review examining the relationship between operating room distractions, interruptions and disruptions, operative duration, patient safety, team performance, workflow and reported mitigation strategies in adult acute-hospital surgical settings.

Background

Distractions and interruptions in the operating room are increasingly recognised as significant threats to patient safety, team performance and surgical efficiency. While some interruptions are clinically necessary, many are avoidable and contribute to cognitive overload, communication failures and procedural errors.

Aim

This systematic review aimed primarily to examine the impact of operating room distractions, interruptions and disruptions on operative time in adults undergoing surgery in acute hospitals, and secondarily to synthesise their sources, associated clinical and team outcomes, and reported mitigation strategies.

Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted following PRISMA guidance. Peer-reviewed studies were identified through systematic searches of major biomedical databases, with no restriction on publication date. Studies examining intraoperative distractions, interruptions, environmental noise, workflow disruptions and associated outcomes were included. Data were synthesised using qualitative thematic analysis because heterogeneity in study designs and outcome measures precluded quantitative meta-analysis.

Results

Thirty-six studies met the inclusion criteria. Distractions were commonly categorised as communication-related, equipment- or technology-driven, environmental and workflow-related. Evidence consistently demonstrated associations between frequent interruptions and increased operative time, higher error rates, elevated cognitive workload and reduced team communication quality.

Systems Factors

System-level contributors including staffing levels, organisational culture and task design were identified as important determinants of interruption frequency and impact.

Conclusion

Distractions and interruptions in the operating room represent a multifactorial systems issue rather than isolated behavioural lapses. Addressing them requires integrated interventions encompassing workforce planning, human factors training, environmental optimisation and leadership-driven safety culture. Future research should prioritise standardised measurement tools and intervention-based studies to inform sustainable improvements in surgical safety.

Review Type Systematic

PRISMA-guided evidence synthesis.

Included Studies 36

Studies met the final eligibility criteria.

Synthesis Qualitative

Thematic synthesis due to study heterogeneity.

Population Adults

Acute-hospital surgical environments.

Communication

Communication-Related DIDs

Communication-related distractions and interruptions were among the most consistently reported categories and were associated with workflow inefficiencies, cognitive burden and reduced team communication quality.

Technology

Equipment & Technology Disruptions

Equipment malfunction, device-related interruptions and other technology-associated disruptions were reported as important sources of workflow interruption and delay within operating rooms.

Environment

Environmental Distractions

Background conversations, noise, movement, door openings and other environmental factors contributed to interruptions of attention and operative workflow.

Operative Duration

Longer Operative Time

Across the available evidence, frequent DIDs were consistently associated with increased operative duration and workflow inefficiency.

Patient Safety

Higher Error Risk

Interruptions were associated with higher error rates and safety concerns, particularly when occurring during high-workload or technically demanding stages of a procedure.

Cognitive Workload

Increased Mental Demand

DIDs may increase cognitive workload by forcing clinicians to switch tasks, reorient attention and recover interrupted procedural sequences.

Systems Perspective

More Than Individual Behaviour

The review identified organisational culture, staffing levels, task design and environmental factors as broader system-level determinants of interruption frequency and impact.

Mitigation

Multilevel Interventions

Potential mitigation strategies include human factors training, structured communication, environmental optimisation, workforce planning and leadership-driven safety initiatives.

Operating Room Distractions
Interruptions
Disruptions
Operative Time
Patient Safety
Acute Hospitals
Thematic Analysis
Human Factors
Workflow
Team Performance
Surgical Efficiency
Systematic Review

Citation Metrics

Citation counts are retrieved independently from scholarly databases. Counts are displayed separately because indexing coverage, citation matching and update frequency differ between services.

Crossref —

Citations reported through the Crossref scholarly metadata network.

Loading…
OpenAlex —

Citations indexed within the OpenAlex scholarly knowledge graph.

Loading…
Semantic Scholar ↗ —

Citations indexed through the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph.

Loading…
Citation counts are intentionally not combined because the same citing publication may be represented in more than one scholarly database. Citation data loading…

Citation Generator

Select a referencing style, copy the formatted citation, or export the article record for use with reference-management software.

Article Type

Systematic Review

This article systematically synthesises evidence on operating room distractions, interruptions and disruptions, with a primary focus on operative duration in adults undergoing surgery in acute hospitals.

Review Framework

PRISMA-Guided Review

The review was conducted using PRISMA guidance to structure study identification, screening, eligibility assessment and inclusion.

Population

Adults in Acute Hospitals

The review focused on adults undergoing surgical procedures in acute-hospital operating room environments.

Primary Outcome

Operative Duration

The principal outcome was the association between operating room distractions, interruptions and disruptions and the length of operative time.

Secondary Outcomes

Safety, Workflow & Team Performance

Secondary outcomes included workflow efficiency, error risk, cognitive workload, communication quality, patient safety and reported mitigation strategies.

Evidence Base

36 Included Studies

Thirty-six studies met the review’s final inclusion criteria and were incorporated into the evidence synthesis.

Evidence Synthesis

Qualitative Thematic Analysis

Substantial heterogeneity in study designs, definitions and outcome measures precluded quantitative meta-analysis. Findings were therefore integrated using qualitative thematic analysis.

Main DID Categories

Four Major Domains

The review identified communication-related, equipment- or technology-related, environmental and workflow-related distractions, interruptions and disruptions.

Interpretation

Systems-Level Patient Safety Issue

The review interprets DIDs as a multifactorial systems problem shaped by organisational culture, staffing, workflow design, environment and team communication rather than isolated individual behaviour.

Future Research

Standardised DID Measurement

Future research should prioritise standardised definitions and measurement tools and prospective intervention-based studies evaluating strategies to reduce avoidable operating room interruptions.

Author’s Contribution

Sole Author

The author conceived, wrote, revised and approved the final manuscript.

Declarations

Conflict of Interest & Funding

Conflict of Interest: No conflict of interest.

Funding: No funding received by the author.

Article History

Editorial Timeline

Received 30 January 2026
Accepted 2 February 2026
Available Online 8 February 2026
Full Text

Published PDF

The complete peer-reviewed article is available as an open-access PDF.

Access Full Text PDF ↗

Open Access

CC BY 4.0

This article is published by The Operating Room Global Journal under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence.

DOI: 10.64573/torgj2601005

Journal Record

Volume 2 · Issue 1 · 2026

The Operating Room Global Journal (TORGJ).
ISSN 3105-3262.
Systematic Review.
Article DOI: 10.64573/torgj2601005.

Scholarly Indexing

Semantic Scholar

This article has a Semantic Scholar record.

View on Semantic Scholar ↗

Access the Published Article

Read or download the official full-text systematic review, access the persistent DOI record, or browse Volume 2, Issue 1 of The Operating Room Global Journal.