BACKGROUND: Mental fatigue and mental recovery have gained scientific attention in relation to sporting performance, yet best practice assessment and management methods are lacking. A greater understanding of current knowledge and practices in high-performance sport are necessary.
OBJECTIVE: To understand the contemporary knowledge, beliefs, monitoring processes, management strategies, perceived responsibility, sources of evidence, and challenges, when assessing the mental fatigue and mental recovery of athletes in high-performance sport.
METHODS: A mixed-methods survey approach obtained information from 156 multi-disciplinary high-performance sport practitioners. Descriptive outputs were reported and potential differences between key concepts were detected using Wilcoxon-signed rank analysis. Thematic analysis interpreted open-text responses.
RESULTS: Only 11.5% and 5.1% of respondents indicated they were \"very\" knowledgeable about mental fatigue and mental recovery, respectively. Knowledge (p < 0.001) and confidence in application (p = 0.001) were significantly greater for mental fatigue than mental recovery. Nearly all respondents perceived mental fatigue and mental recovery impacted training and competition performance, with a greater negative impact during competition (p < 0.001). A limited number of respondents reported deliberate assessment (31.1%) or management (51.2%) of mental fatigue and mental recovery. A combination of sources of evidence were used to inform practice, with common challenges to implementation including staff knowledge, athlete-buy in, time-availability, and a lack of evidence. Practitioners reported that assessing and managing mental fatigue and mental recovery was multi-disciplinary in nature.
CONCLUSIONS: Practitioners reported that mental fatigue and mental recovery did impact performance, yet this was not reflected in the implementation of evidence-based assessment and management practices in high-performance sport.

Human factors is an evidence-based scientific discipline used in safety critical industries to improve safety and worker well-being. The implementation of human factors strategies in anaesthesia has the potential to reduce the reliance on exceptional personal and team performance to provide safe and high-quality patient care. To encourage the adoption of human factors science in anaesthesia, the Difficult Airway Society and the Association of Anaesthetists established a Working Party, including anaesthetists and operating theatre team members with human factors expertise and/or interest, plus a human factors scientist, an industrial psychologist and an experimental psychologist/implementation scientist. A three-stage Delphi process was used to formulate a set of 12 recommendations: these are described using a \'hierarchy of controls\' model and classified into design, barriers, mitigations and education and training strategies. Although most anaesthetic knowledge of human factors concerns non-technical skills, such as teamwork and communication, human factors is a broad-based scientific discipline with many other additional aspects that are just as important. Indeed, the human factors strategies most likely to have the greatest impact are those related to the design of safe working environments, equipment and systems. While our recommendations are primarily provided for anaesthetists and the teams they work with, there are likely to be lessons for others working in healthcare beyond the speciality of anaesthesia.