Surgical crises represent unrecognized opportunities for improving patient safety and adding value in healthcare. The first step in a crisis response is to contain and mitigate harm. While the principles of damage control are well established in surgery, methods of containing harm on broader clinical and organizational levels are not clearly defined.

A multimethods qualitative study identified crisis containment strategies and tools in commercial aviation. These were translated and clinically adapted in 3 stages: semi-structured observational fieldwork with commercial airlines, interviews with senior pilots, and focus groups with both healthcare and aviation safety experts. Thematic analysis and expert consensus methods were used to derive a framework for crisis containment.

Fieldwork with 2 commercial airlines identified 2 crisis containment concepts: the detrimental impact of surprising or startling events on operator performance; and the use of prioritization tools to take basic but critical actions (Aviate, Navigate and Communicate model). Twenty-two experts in aviation and healthcare practice informed the topic of crisis containment in 17 interviews and 3 focus groups. Three strategies were identified and used to form a crisis containment algorithm:

1. Manage the operators' startle response to facilitate meaningful mitigating actions (STOP tool);

2. Take priority actions to secure core functions. These included managing patients' physiologic shock, optimizing environmental risks, and mobilizing resources (Perfuse, Move and Communicate tool);

3. Deploy well-rehearsed drills targeting case-specific harms or errors (Memory Actions). This model requires validation in clinical practice.

Crisis containment can be achieved by controlling operators' startle response, applying prioritization tools, and deploying drills against specific failures. The application of this model may extend to healthcare areas outside surgery.