Social and Cognitive Skills (SCOPE)-a generic model for multi-professional work and education in healthcare.

In this article, we present a generic model for social and cognitive skills that can be used in work and (simulation-based) education in healthcare. We combined existing non-technical skills tools into a tool that we call SCOPE. SCOPE is a model that comprises the three social categories of "teamwork", "leading", and "task management" as well as the two cognitive categories of "situation awareness" and "decision making". Each category comprises between three and six elements. We formulated guiding questions for each category in an attempt to emphasize its core meaning. We developed a dynamic graphical representation of the categories that emphasize the constant changes in the relative importance of the categories over the course of a clinical or educational situation. Anecdotal evidence supports the value of the model for aligning language around social and cognitive skills across specialties and professions.

An interview study about how nurses and physicians talk about the same concepts differently.

BACKGROUND: How healthcare professionals understand and use concepts of social and cognitive capabilities will influence their behaviour and their understanding of others' behaviour. Differing understandings of concepts might lead to healthcare professionals not acting in accordance with other healthcare professionals' expectations. Therefore, part of the problem concerning errors and adverse incidents concerning social and cognitive capabilities might be due to varying understandings of concepts among different healthcare professionals. This study aimed to examine the variations in how educators at the Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation talk about social and cognitive capabilities. METHODS: The study was conducted using semi-structured interviews and directed content analysis. The codes for the analysis process were derived from existing non-technical skills models and used to show variations in how the participants talk about the same concepts. RESULTS: Educators with a background as nurses and physicians, talked differently about leadership and decision-making, with the nurses paying greater attention to group dynamics and external factors when describing both leadership and decision-making, whereas physicians focus on their individual efforts. CONCLUSION: We found patterned differences in how the participants described leadership and decision-making that may be related to participants' professional training/background. As it can create misunderstandings and unsafe situations if nurses and physicians disagree on the meaning of leadership and decision-making (without necessarily recognising this difference), it could be beneficial to educate healthcare professionals to be aware of the specificity of their own concepts, and to communicate what exactly they mean by using a particular concept, e.g. "I want you to coordinate tasks" instead of "I want better leadership".

A cognitive-behavioural intervention to reduce driving anger: Evaluation based on a mixed-method approach.

Road anger is an increasing problem that does not only lead to discomfort but is also associated with aggressive driving and an increased risk of crash involvement. Based on a cognitive-behavioural approach, we developed and tested a short group intervention (90 min) that aimed at decreasing road anger among drivers. We used a before-after control group design, surveying people who did (EG) and who did not (CG) participate in the group intervention. The sample (n = 126) consisted of 80 men and 46 women with a mean age of 54 years (SD = 13). In addition, a sub-sample (n = 37) participated in a driving simulator study before and after the intervention. To enrich the survey- and simulator-based findings, we conducted a focus group discussion about post-intervention experiences in traffic. Comparisons of pre and post survey results showed that constructive expression as measured by a slightly revised sub-scale of the Driving Anger Expression Inventory (DAX-short), increased significantly for EG participants but not within the CG. In addition, the involvement in milder forms of road anger (e.g., yelling) decreased significantly in the EG but not in the CG. In the simulator study, we observed that EG participants decreased the extent of aggressive driving, commenting and gesturing - however, none of these differences were statistically significant. EG participants self-assessed the intervention overall positive and 44 % reported that they had changed their way of thinking or reacting in traffic. Overall, results indicate a positive effect of the cognitive-behavioural group intervention. Study limitations, possibilities to improve the intervention and different areas of application are discussed.