Objective: Verbal communication during coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) procedures is essential for safe and efficient cardiac surgery, yet sensitive to failure due to a current lack of standardization. The goal of this study was to improve communication during CABG by identifying critical items in verbal interaction between surgeons, anesthetists and perfusionists. Methods: Based on 6 video recordings, a list was assembled containing items of communication in CABG procedures. Personal interviews and a consecutive focus group meeting with surgeons, anesthetists and perfusionists revealed which of these items were considered critical. Afterwards, the recordings were systematically analysed on the communication of these critical items. Results: Practitioners considered 64 items to be critical to verbally communicate for safe CABG surgery. On average, these critical items were verbalized in 4.4 out of 6 recorded CABGs. Observations also show that the surgical subteam is the most verbally active subteam and the initiator of the majority of all exchanges. The exchange type involved was mainly ‘direction’ and ‘status’. The majority of communication during critical events is between two subteams and occurs in the form of call-back loops. Over half of the call-backs are substantive and communication is rarely directed at a specific team member by name. Conclusions: In this study, a list was developed containing 64 items that practitioners unanimously considered critical to verbalize during a CABG procedure. It forms the foundation of a quality standard for verbal communication during cardio-pulmonary bypass (CPB) and can increase safety and efficiency of cardiac surgery.

The concept of Responsible Research & Innovation (RRI) seems to gain initial momentum. The lack of collective meaning however, results in a plethora of publications, which describe RRI from ad hoc perspectives. To provide a robust foundation for scholars and practitioners seeking to implement RRI, we aim to integrate those perspectives through a literature review. We develop a practical framework for RRI, synthesized from earlier frameworks and ideas, that can be operationalized in research and innovation practice to help make RRI more tangible for scientists and engineers. We analyze policy papers, EU project proposals, and academic articles on RRI that appeared between 2011 and 2016 to identify common qualifiers of RRI. The resulting framework integrates a set of qualifiers that are central to the concept of ‘responsive’ research and innovation. The framework also allows identification of ‘RRI shortcuts’ to be avoided. We invite scholars to investigate the applicability of this framework as a means of shifting RRI from concept to practice.