ABSTRACT
Suboptimal teamwork in the operating room (OR) is a contributing factor in a significant proportion of preventable complications for surgical patients. Specifying behaviour is fundamental to closing evidence-practice gaps in healthcare. Current teamwork interventions, however, have yet to be synthesized in this way. This scoping review aimed to identify actionable strategies for use during surgery by mapping the existing literature according to the Action, Actor, Context, Target, Time (AACTT) framework. The databases MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online), Embase, Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), Cochrane, Scopus, and PsycINFO were searched from inception to April 5, 2022. Screening and data extraction were conducted in duplicate by pairs of independent reviewers. The search identified 9,289 references after the removal of duplicates. Across 249 studies deemed eligible for inclusion, eight types of teamwork interventions could be mapped according to the AACTT framework: bundle/checklists, protocols, audit and feedback, clinical practice guidelines, environmental change, cognitive aid, education, and other), yet many were ambiguous regarding the actors and actions involved. The 101 included protocol interventions appeared to be among the most actionable for the OR based on the clear specification of ACCTT elements, and their effectiveness should be evaluated and compared in future work.
ABSTRACT
Background: Teamwork is a critical competency in high-risk settings like the operating room (OR). While conventional approaches focus on describing and learning from negative performance, there may be value in learning from high-performing behaviour, particularly in specialties where serious safety events are relatively rare. This study aimed to explore both the positive and negative use of non-technical skills by anesthesia practitioners in the OR and situate them within the clinical OR context. Methods: This study employed a prospective observational design. Following research ethics approval, a sample of surgical cases in a tertiary hospital were recorded using the OR Black Box®. Data related to surgical phase timing, non-technical skills, team factors, and environmental factors were identified by analysts according to a modified Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety model. We performed descriptive statistics and qualitative description of these observations. Results: We observed 25 surgical cases capturing 242 instances of positive non-technical skills among anesthesiologists in the operating room and 9 instances of negative demonstrations. Situational awareness was most frequently (n = 160) observed, followed by communication and teamwork skills (n = 82), and were most often demonstrated in the context of potential environmental distractions (e.g., doors opening, unnecessary interruptions). The least common category of positive non-technical skills observed was leadership (n = 3). Conclusions: Our findings show anesthesiologists are doing a lot "right" and there may be many opportunities for learning from positive practice in the clinical setting. These findings can inform future work to better understand and standardize best practices for non-technical performance in anesthesia.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: As the COVID-19 pandemic evolves, new effective treatment options are essential for reducing morbidity and mortality as well as the strain placed on the healthcare system. Since publication of our initial review on hyperbaric oxygen treatment (HBOT) for hypoxaemic COVID-19 patients, interest in HBOT for COVID-19 has grown and additional studies have been published. METHODS: For this living systematic review update the previously published search strategy (excluding Google Scholar) was adopted with an extension from 01 February 2021 to 01 April 2022. Study inclusion criteria, data extraction, risk of bias estimation and dispute resolution methods were repeated. RESULTS: Two new studies enrolling 127 patients were included in this update, taking the total to eight studies with 224 patients. Both new studies were randomised controlled trials, one at moderate and one at high risk of bias. Across these eight studies, 114 patients were treated with HBOT. All reported improved clinical outcomes without observation of any serious adverse events. Meta-analysis remained unjustified given the high heterogeneity between studies and incomplete reporting. CONCLUSIONS: This updated living systematic review provides further evidence on the safety and effectiveness of HBOT to treat acute hypoxaemic COVID-19 patients.
