How to enrich team research in healthcare by considering five theoretical perspectives.

The aim of this paper is to inspire team research to apply diverse and unconventional perspectives to study team dynamics and performance in healthcare settings. To illustrate that using multiple perspectives can yield valuable insights, we examine a segment of a team interaction during a heart-surgery, using five distinct interdisciplinary perspectives known from small group research: the psychodynamic, functional, conflict-power-status, temporal, and social identity perspectives. We briefly describe each theoretical perspective, discuss its application to study healthcare teams, and present possible research questions for the segment at hand using the respective perspective. We also highlight the benefits and challenges associated with employing these diverse approaches and explore how they can be integrated to analyze team processes in health care. Finally, we offer our own insights and opinions on the integration of these approaches, as well as the types of data required to conduct such analyses. We also point to further research avenues and highlight the benefits associated with employing these diverse approaches. Finally, we offer our own insights and opinions on the integration of these approaches, as well as the types of data required to conduct such analyses.

Exposure to incivility does not hinder speaking up: a randomised controlled high-fidelity simulation-based study.

BACKGROUND: Speaking up with concerns is critical for patient safety. We studied whether witnessing a civil (i.e. polite, respectful) response to speaking up would increase the occurrence of further speaking up by hospital staff members as compared with witnessing a pseudo-civil (i.e. vague and slightly dismissive) or rude response. METHODS: In this RCT in a single, large academic teaching hospital, a single simulated basic life support scenario was designed to elicit standardised opportunities to speak up. Participants in teams of two or three were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions in which the degree of civility in reacting to speaking up was manipulated by an embedded simulated person. Speaking up behaviour was assessed by behaviour coding of the video recordings of the team interactions by applying 10 codes using The Observer XT 14.1. Data were analysed using multilevel modelling. RESULTS: The sample included 125 interprofessional hospital staff members (82 [66%] women, 43 [34%] men). Participants were more likely to speak up when they felt psychologically safe (γ=0.47; standard error [se]=0.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.09-0.85; P=0.017). Participants were more likely to speak up in the rude condition than in the other conditions (γ=0.28; se=0.12; 95% CI, 0.05-0.52; P=0.019). Across conditions, participants spoke up most frequently by structuring inquiry (n=289, 31.52%), proactive (n=240, 26.17%), and reactive (n=148, 16.14%) instruction statements, and gestures (n=139, 15.16%). CONCLUSION: Our study challenges current assumptions about the interplay of civility and speaking up behaviour in healthcare.

Associations of form and function of speaking up in anaesthesia: a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Speaking up with concerns in the interest of patient safety has been identified as important for the quality and safety of patient care. The study objectives were to identify how anaesthesia care providers speak up, how their colleagues react to it, whether there is an association among speak up form and reaction, and how this reaction is associated with further speak up. METHODS: Data were collected over 3 months at a single centre in Switzerland by observing 49 anaesthesia care providers while performing induction of general anaesthesia in 53 anaesthesia teams. Speaking up and reactions to speaking up were measured by event-based behaviour coding. RESULTS: Instances of speaking up were classified as opinion (59.6%), oblique hint (37.2%), inquiry (30.7%), and observation (16.7%). Most speak up occurred as a combination of different forms. Reactions to speak up included short approval (36.5%), elaboration (35.9%), no verbal reaction (26.3%), or rejection (1.28%). Speaking up was implemented in 89.1% of cases. Inquiry was associated with an increased likelihood of recipients discussing the respective issue (odds ratio [OR]=13.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.9-31.5; P<0.0001) and with a decreased likelihood of implementing the speak up during the same induction (OR=0.27; 95% CI, 0.08-0.88; P=0.03). Reacting with elaboration to the first speak up was associated with decreased further speak up during the same induction (relative risk [RR]=0.42; 95% CI, 0.21-0.83; P=0.018). CONCLUSION: Our study provides insights into the form and function of speaking up in clinical environments and points to a perceived dilemma of speaking up via questions.

DE-CODE: a coding scheme for assessing debriefing interactions.

Debriefings are crucial for learning during simulation-based training (SBT). Although the quality of debriefings is very important for SBT, few studies have examined actual debriefing conversations. Investigating debriefing conversations is important for identifying typical debriefer-learner interaction patterns, obtaining insights into associations between debriefers' communication and learners' reflection and comparing different debriefing approaches. We aim at contributing to the science of debriefings by developing DE-CODE, a valid and reliable coding scheme for assessing debriefers' and learners' communication in debriefings. It is applicable for both direct, on-site observations and video-based coding. Methods: The coding scheme was developed both deductively and inductively from literature on team learning and debriefing and observing debriefings during SBT, respectively. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using Cohen's kappa. DE-CODE was tested for both live and video-based coding. Results: DE-CODE consists of 32 codes for debriefers' communication and 15 codes for learners' communication. For live coding, coders achieved good inter-rater reliabilities with the exception of four codes for debriefers' communication and two codes for learners' communication. For video-based coding, coders achieved substantial inter-rater reliabilities with the exception of five codes for debriefers' communication and three codes for learners' communication. Conclusion: DE-CODE is designed as micro-level measurement tool for coding debriefing conversations applicable to any debriefing of SBT in any field (except for the code medical input). It is reliable for direct, on-site observations as well as for video-based coding. DE-CODE is intended to allow for obtaining insights into what works and what does not work during debriefings and contribute to the science of debriefing.

Assessing distractors and teamwork during surgery: developing an event-based method for direct observation.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a behavioural observation method to simultaneously assess distractors and communication/teamwork during surgical procedures through direct, on-site observations; to establish the reliability of the method for long (>3 h) procedures. METHODS: Observational categories for an event-based coding system were developed based on expert interviews, observations and a literature review. Using Cohen's κ and the intraclass correlation coefficient, interobserver agreement was assessed for 29 procedures. Agreement was calculated for the entire surgery, and for the 1st hour. In addition, interobserver agreement was assessed between two tired observers and between a tired and a non-tired observer after 3 h of surgery. RESULTS: The observational system has five codes for distractors (door openings, noise distractors, technical distractors, side conversations and interruptions), eight codes for communication/teamwork (case-relevant communication, teaching, leadership, problem solving, case-irrelevant communication, laughter, tension and communication with external visitors) and five contextual codes (incision, last stitch, personnel changes in the sterile team, location changes around the table and incidents). Based on 5-min intervals, Cohen's κ was good to excellent for distractors (0.74-0.98) and for communication/teamwork (0.70-1). Based on frequency counts, intraclass correlation coefficient was excellent for distractors (0.86-0.99) and good to excellent for communication/teamwork (0.45-0.99). After 3 h of surgery, Cohen's κ was 0.78-0.93 for distractors, and 0.79-1 for communication/teamwork. DISCUSSION: The observational method developed allows a single observer to simultaneously assess distractors and communication/teamwork. Even for long procedures, high interobserver agreement can be achieved. Data collected with this method allow for investigating separate or combined effects of distractions and communication/teamwork on surgical performance and patient outcomes.

The surgeon's perspective: promoting and discouraging factors for choosing a career in surgery as perceived by surgeons.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to identify the factors perceived by surgeons that promote surgery as an attractive or unattractive career choice for today's graduates. In addition, it examined whether the perspectives of surgeons in different professional situations converges. The content of work, contextual work conditions, and calling to this job are discussed in the context of choosing surgery as a career. METHODS: Eight hundred sixty-nine surgeons were asked to answer open-ended questions regarding the factors that promote surgery as an attractive or unattractive career choice for today's graduates. Four hundred ninety-two surgeons participated, and 1,525 statements were analyzed using Mayring's content-analyses method. Chi-square tests were used to analyze the differences among hierarchical positions. RESULTS: With respect to the factors that promote surgery as a profession, 40.8% (209/492) of the surgeons stated that surgery is a calling, 29.1% (149/492) of the surgeons provided at least one argument related to the positive task characteristics, and 12.9% (66/492) of the surgeons provided statements related to the positive contextual factors. With respect to the factors that discourage surgery as a profession, 45.7% (234/492) of the surgeons provided at least one argument related to the discouraging work characteristics, and 67.6% (346/492) of the surgeons provided problematic contextual characteristics. CONCLUSION: This study emphasizes the importance of the calling to surgery as an important factor for choosing surgery as a career. However, the extensive workload, training, and poor work-family balance have been identified as factors that discourage graduates from choosing surgery as a career. The identified positive factors could be used to attract and maintain graduates in surgical disciplines.

Reasons for the persistence of adverse events in the era of safer surgery--a qualitative approach.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate potential reasons given by board-certified doctors for the persistence of adverse events despite efforts to improve patient safety in Switzerland. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: In recent years, substantial efforts have been made to improve patient safety by introducing surgical safety checklists to standardise surgeries and team procedures. Still, a high number of adverse events remain. METHODS: Clinic directors in operative medicine in Switzerland were asked to answer two questions concerning the reasons for persistence of adverse events, and the advantages and disadvantages of introducing and implementing surgical safety checklists. Of 799 clinic directors, the arguments of 237 (29.7%) were content-analysed using Mayring's content analysis method, resulting in 12 different categories. RESULTS: Potential reasons for the persistence of adverse events were mainly seen as being related to the "individual" (126/237, 53.2%), but directors of high-volume clinics identified factors related to the "group and interactions" significantly more often as a reason (60.2% vs 40.2%; p = 0.003). Surgical safety checklists were thought to have positive effects on the "organisational level" (47/237, 19.8%), the "team level" (37/237, 15.6%) and the "patient level" (40/237, 16.9%), with a "lack of willingness to implement checklists" as the main disadvantage (34/237, 14.3%). CONCLUSION: This qualitative study revealed the individual as the main player in the persistence of adverse events. Working conditions should be optimised to minimise interface problems in the case of cross-covering of patients, to assure support for students, residents and interns, and to reduce strain. Checklists are helpful on an "organisational level" (e.g., financial benefits, quality assurance) and to clarify responsibilities.