Alone Together: Is Strain Experienced Concurrently by Members of Operating Room Teams?: An Event-based Study.

Objective: To identify which strain episodes are concurrently reported by several team members; to identify triggers of strain experienced by operating room (OR) team members during the intraoperative phase. Summary: OR teams are confronted with many sources of strain. However, most studies investigate strain on a general, rather than an event-based level, which does not allow to determine if strain episodes are experienced concurrently by different team members. Methods: We conducted an event-based, observational study, at an academic medical center in North America and included 113 operations performed in 5 surgical departments (general, vascular, pediatric, gynecology, and trauma/acute care). Strain episodes were assessed with a guided-recall method. Immediately after operations, participants mentally recalled the operation, described the strain episodes experienced and their content. Results: Based on 731 guided recalls, 461 strain episodes were reported; these refer to 312 unique strain episodes. Overall, 75% of strain episodes were experienced by a single team member only. Among different categories of unique strain episodes, those triggered by task complexity, issues with material, or others' behaviors were typically experienced by 1 team member only. However, acute patient issues (n = 167) and observations of others' strain (n = 12) (respectively, 58.5%; P < 0.001 and 83.3%; P < 0.001) were often experienced by 2 or more team members. Conclusions and relevance: OR team members are likely to experience strain alone, unless patient safety is at stake. This may jeopardize the building of a shared understanding among OR team members.

Designing healthcare for human use: Human factors and practical considerations for the translational process.

In recent years, the focus of implementation science (IS) shifted to emphasize the influence of contextual factors on intervention adaptations in clinical, community, and corporate settings. Each of these settings represent a unique work system with varying contexts that influence human capabilities, needs, and performance (otherwise known as "human factors"). The ease of human interaction with a work system or an intervention is imperative to IS outcomes, particularly adoption, implementation, and maintenance. Both scientific approaches consider the "big picture" when designing interventions for users and stakeholders to improve work and health outcomes. IS and human factors are therefore complementary in nature. In this paper, the authors will (1) provide perspective on the synergistic relationship between human factors and IS using two illustrative and applied cases and (2) outline practical considerations for human factors-based strategies to identify contextual factors that influence intervention adoption, implementation, and maintenance dimensions of the RE-AIM framework. This article expands on recent research that developed user- and human-centered design strategies for IS scientists to use. However, defining the complementary relationship between IS and human factors is a necessary and valuable step in maximizing the effectiveness of IS to transform healthcare. While IS can complement practitioners' identification of intervention adaptations, human interaction is a process in the work system often overlooked throughout implementation. Further work is needed to address the influence that organizational endorsement and trust have on intervention adaptations and their translation into the work system.

Episodes of strain experienced in the operating room: impact of the type of surgery, the profession and the phase of the operation.

BACKGROUND: Strain episodes, defined as phases of higher workload, stress or negative emotions, occur everyday in the operating room (OR). Accurate knowledge of when strain is most intense for the different OR team members is imperative for developing appropriate interventions. The primary goal of the study was to investigate temporal patterns of strain across surgical phases for different professionals working in the OR, for different types of operations. METHODS: We developed a guided recall method to assess the experience of strain from the perspective of operating room (OR) team members. The guided recall was completed by surgeons, residents, anesthesiologists, circulating nurses and scrub technicians immediately after 113 operations, performed in 5 departments of one hospital in North America. We also conducted interviews with 16 surgeons on strain moments during their specific operation types. Strain experiences were related to surgical phases and compared across different operation types separately for each profession in the OR. RESULTS: We analyzed 693 guided recalls. General linear modeling (GLM) showed that strain varied across the phases of the operations (defined as before incision, first third, middle third and last third) [quadratic (F = 47.85, p < 0.001) and cubic (F = 8.94, p = 0.003) effects]. Phases of operations varied across professional groups [linear (F = 4.14, p = 0.001) and quadratic (F = 14.28, p < 0.001) effects] and surgery types [only cubic effects (F = 4.92, p = 0.001)]. Overall strain was similar across surgery types (F = 1.27, p = 0.28). Surgeons reported generally more strain episodes during the first and second third of the operations; except in vascular operations, where no phase was associated with significantly higher strain levels, and emergency/trauma surgery, where strain episodes occurred primarily during the first third of the operation. Other professional groups showed different strain time patterns. CONCLUSIONS: Members of the OR teams experience strain differently across the phases of an operation. Thus, phases with high concentration requirements may highly vary across OR team members and no single phase of an operation can be defined as a "sterile cockpit" phase for all team members.

Predictors and triggers of incivility within healthcare teams: a systematic review of the literature.

OBJECTIVES: To explore predictors and triggers of incivility in medical teams, defined as behaviours that violate norms of respect but whose intent to harm is ambiguous. DESIGN: Systematic literature review of quantitative and qualitative empirical studies. DATA SOURCES: Database searches according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline in Medline, CINHAL, PsychInfo, Web of Science and Embase up to January 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Original empirical quantitative and qualitative studies focusing on predictors and triggers of incivilities in hospital healthcare teams, excluding psychiatric care. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Of the 1397 publications screened, 53 were included (44 quantitative and 9 qualitative studies); publication date ranged from 2002 to January 2020. RESULTS: Based on the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) scores, the quality of the quantitative studies were relatively low overall (mean MERSQI score of 9.93), but quality of studies increased with publication year (r=0.52; p<0.001). Initiators of incivility were consistently described as having a difficult personality, yet few studies investigated their other characteristics and motivations. Results were mostly inconsistent regarding individual characteristics of targets of incivilities (eg, age, gender, ethnicity), but less experienced healthcare professionals were more exposed to incivility. In most studies, participants reported experiencing incivilities mainly within their own professional discipline (eg, nurse to nurse) rather than across disciplines (eg, physician to nurse). Evidence of specific medical specialties particularly affected by incivility was poor, with surgery as one of the most cited uncivil specialties. Finally, situational and cultural predictors of higher incivility levels included high workload, communication or coordination issues, patient safety concerns, lack of support and poor leadership. CONCLUSIONS: Although a wide range of predictors and triggers of incivilities are reported in the literature, identifying characteristics of initiators and the targets of incivilities yielded inconsistent results. The use of diverse and high-quality methods is needed to explore the dynamic nature of situational and cultural triggers of incivility.

Differential interference contrast microscopy with adjustable plastic Sanderson prisms.

Differential interference contrast (DIC) microscopy is a technique to image spatially dependent gradients in optical path lengths. Contrast is produced through the splitting of polarized light with quartz Wollaston prisms. Here we demonstrate that light splitting for DIC microscopy can also be achieved with Sanderson prisms consisting of polycarbonate bars under a bending load. Comparable image contrast while imaging cultured cells was achieved with this alternative technique. These results demonstrate an inexpensive and easily adjustable alternative to traditional quartz Wollaston prisms.

The NOTECHS+: A Short Scale Designed for Assessing the Non-technical Skills (and more) in the Aviation and the Emergency Personnel.

This research presents the development of a short scale named "NOTECHS+" to measure the Non-Technical Skills (i.e., NOTECHS: Cooperation, Leadership and Managerial skills, Decision-Making, and Situational Awareness), Resilience and Emotion Regulation, in a sector that comprises the aviation and the emergency personnel: the Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS). The design process of the scale was carried out starting from a review on the behavioral markers used to detect the NOTECHS. Moreover, 70 interviews with HEMS experts have been conducted with the aim of developing Resilience and Emotion Regulation items by considering the different professional profiles (e.g., pilots, nurses, physicians, etc.) which compose the HEMS. Through a pre-assessment procedure, a Q-Sort test was performed on a sample of students (n = 30) to test the logical principles, but also intelligibility and clarity, of the items developed. Once the instrument was defined, 211 participants from the HEMS sector were surveyed to test the theoretical model behind the NOTECHS+ instrument. First exploratory and then confirmatory analysis yielded results that suggested that the 18 items selected conform to a bi-factor model composed of three skill-dimensions: Social skills (i.e., Cooperation, and Leadership and Managerial skills), Cognitive skills (i.e., Decision-Making and Situational Awareness) and Emotional skills (i.e., Resilience and Emotional Regulation). Finally, the study ends with a discussion on the results obtained, including practical implications on assessment and training based on this novel instrument.