Latent Safety Threats and Countermeasures in the Operating Theater: A National In Situ Simulation-Based Observational Study.

INTRODUCTION: In situ simulation provides a valuable opportunity to identify latent safety threats (LSTs) in real clinical environments. Using a national simulation program, we explored latent safety threats (LSTs) identified during in situ multidisciplinary simulation-based training in operating theaters in hospitals across New Zealand. METHOD: Surgical simulations lasting between 15 and 45 minutes each were run as part of a team training course delivered in 21 hospitals in New Zealand. After surgical in situ simulations, instructors used a template to record identified LSTs in a postcourse report. We analyzed these reports using the contributory factors framework from the London Protocol to categorize LSTs. RESULTS: Of 103 postcourse reports across 21 hospitals, 77 contained LSTs ranging across all factors in the London Protocol. Common threats included staff knowledge and skills in emergencies, team factors, factors related to task or technology, and work environment threats. Team factors were also commonly reported as protecting against adverse events, in particular, creating a shared mental model. Examples of actions taken to address threats included replacing or repairing faulty equipment, clarifying emergency processes, correcting written information, and staff training for clinical emergencies. CONCLUSIONS: The pervasiveness of LSTs suggests that our results have widespread relevance to surgical departments throughout New Zealand and elsewhere and that collective solutions would be valuable. In situ simulation is an effective mechanism both for identifying threats to patient safety and to prompt initiatives for improvement, supporting the use of in situ simulation in the quality improvement cycle in healthcare.

Performativity, identity formation and professionalism: Ethnographic research to explore student experiences of clinical simulation training.

Developing professional identity is a vital part of health professionals' education. In Auckland four tertiary institutions have partnered to run an interprofessional simulation training course called Urgent and Immediate Patient Care Week (UIPCW) which is compulsory for Year Five medical, Year Four pharmacy, Year Three paramedicine and Year Three nursing students. We sought to understand student experiences of UIPCW and how those experiences informed student ideas about professional identity and their emergent practice as health professionals within multidisciplinary teams. In 2018, we commenced ethnographic research involving participant observation, field notes, interviews, photography and observational ethnographic film. A total of 115 students participated in this research. The emergent findings concern the potentially transformative learning opportunity presented within high fidelity multi-disciplinary simulations for students to develop their professional identity in relation to peers from other professions. Our work also exposes the heightened anxiety and stress which can be experienced by students in such interdisciplinary simulations. Student experience suggests this is due to a range of factors including students having to perform in front of peers and staff in such simulation scenarios when their own professional identity and capabilities are still in emergent stages. Staff-led simulation debriefs form a critical success factor for transformative learning to be able to occur in any such simulations so that students can reflect on, and move beyond, the emotion and uncertainty of such experiences to develop future-focused concepts of professional identity and strategies to support effective interprofessional teamwork.

Towards a safer culture: implementing multidisciplinary simulation-based team training in New Zealand operating theatres - a framework analysis.

AIM: NetworkZ is a simulation-based multidisciplinary team-training programme designed to enhance patient safety by improving communication and teamwork in operating theatres (OTs). In partnership with the Accident Compensation Corporation, its implementation across New Zealand (NZ) began in 2017. Our aim was to explore the experiences of staff - including the challenges they faced - in implementing NetworkZ in NZ hospitals, so that we could improve the processes necessary for subsequent implementation. METHOD: We interviewed staff from five hospitals involved in the initial implementation of NetworkZ, using the Organising for Quality model as the framework for analysis. This model describes embedding successful quality improvement as a process of overcoming six universal challenges: structure, infrastructure, politics, culture, motivation and learning. RESULTS: Thirty-one people participated. Structural support within the hospital was considered essential to maintain staff enthusiasm, momentum and to embed the programme. The multidisciplinary, simulation-based approach to team training was deemed a fundamental infrastructure for learning, with participants especially valuing the realistic in situ simulations and educational support. Participants reported positive changes to the OT culture as a result of NetworkZ and this realisation motivated its implementation. In sites with good structural support, NetworkZ implementation proceeded quickly and participants reported rapid cultural change towards improved teamwork and communication in their OTs. CONCLUSION: Implementation challenges exist and strategies to overcome these are informing future implementation of NetworkZ. Embedding the programme as business as usual across a nation requires significant and sustained support at all levels. However, the potential gains in patient safety and workplace culture from widespread multidisciplinary team training are substantial. Trial registration number ACTRN12617000017325.

Pharmacy Students' Perspectives on Interprofessional Learning in a Simulated Patient Care Ward Environment.

Objective. To assess pharmacy students' opinions of an interprofessional learning (IPL) course in their final year of the Bachelor of Pharmacy program at The University of Auckland. Methods. Pharmacy students participated in the second day of a two-day simulation-based course, WardSim, alongside medical and nursing students in an acute care, hospital ward setting. After finishing the course, all students were asked to complete a questionnaire. The responses of pharmacy, nursing, and medical students on the scaled questions were compared. An in-depth thematic analysis of the pharmacy students' responses to the open-ended questions was completed using an iterative process. Results. Significant differences were found among the students' responses regarding the prioritization of care, systematic assessment of patients, and communication strategies. Pharmacy students had less favourable responses regarding the IPL experience than medical and nursing students. However, overall responses were positive. Some of the themes that emerged among the pharmacy students' responses included: learning communication tools, being assertive in communicating with other health care professionals, and understanding their own and others' roles in the health care team. Furthermore, some pharmacy students reported feeling underprepared for and underutilized during patient care scenarios. Conclusion. An IPL experience in an acute patient care setting demonstrated clear and beneficial learning outcomes for pharmacy students, especially in regards to communicating and understanding their roles and those of others on their team. Tailoring the pre-work or scenarios for the IPL experience to be more pharmacy orientated and having pharmacy students participate on both days may improve the preparedness for IPL.

Improving the quality of administration of the Surgical Safety Checklist: a mixed methods study in New Zealand hospitals.

While the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist (the Checklist) can improve patient outcomes, variable administration can erode benefits. We sought to understand and improve how operating room (OR) staff use the Checklist. Our specific aims were to: determine if OR staff can discriminate between good and poor quality of Checklist administration using a validated audit tool (WHOBARS); to determine reliability and accuracy of WHOBARS self-ratings; determine the influence of demographic variables on ratings and explore OR staff attitudes to Checklist administration. DESIGN: Mixed methods study using WHOBARS ratings of surgical cases by OR staff and two independent observers, thematic analysis of staff interviews. PARTICIPANTS: OR staff in three New Zealand hospitals. OUTCOME MEASURES: Reliability of WHOBARS for self-audit; staff attitudes to Checklist administration. RESULTS: Analysis of scores (243 participants, 2 observers, 59 cases) supported tool reliability, with 87% of WHOBARS score variance attributable to differences in Checklist administration between cases. Self-ratings were significantly higher than observer ratings, with some differences between professional groups but error variance from all raters was less than 10%. Key interview themes (33 interviewees) were: Team culture and embedding the Checklist, Information transfer and obstacles, Raising concerns and 'A tick-box exercise'. Interviewees felt the Checklist could promote teamwork and a safety culture, particularly enabling speaking up. Senior staff were of key importance in setting the appropriate tone. CONCLUSIONS: The WHOBARS tool could be useful for self-audit and quality improvement as OR staff can reliably discriminate between good and poor Checklist administration. OR staff self-ratings were lenient compared with external observers suggesting the value of external audit for benchmarking. Small differences between ratings from professional groups underpin the value of including all members of the team in scoring. We identified factors explaining staff perceptions of the Checklist that should inform quality improvement interventions.

Ward calls not so scary for medical students after interprofessional simulation course: a mixed-methods cohort evaluation study.

Background: An interprofessional simulation 'ward call' course-WardSim-was designed and implemented for medical, pharmacy and nursing students. We evaluated this intervention and also explored students' experiences and ideas of both the course and of ward calls. Methods: We used a mixed-methods cohort study design including survey and focus groups. Descriptive statistical analysis and general purpose thematic analysis were undertaken. Results: Survey respondents who participated in WardSim subsequently attended more ward calls and took a more active role than the control cohort, with 34% of the intervention cohort attending ward calls under indirect supervision, compared with 15% from the control cohort (P=0.004). Focus group participants indicated that the situation they were most anxious about facing in the future was attending a ward call. They reported that their collective experiences on WardSim alleviated such anxiety because it offered them experiential learning that they could then apply in real-life situations. They said they had learnt how to work effectively with other team members, to take on a leadership role, to make differential diagnoses under pressure and to effectively communicate and seek help. Conclusions: An interprofessional, simulated ward call course increased medical students' sense of preparedness for and participation in ward calls in the next calendar year.

Retesting the Hypothesis of a Clinical Randomized Controlled Trial in a Simulation Environment to Validate Anesthesia Simulation in Error Research (the VASER Study).

BACKGROUND: Simulation has been used to investigate clinical questions in anesthesia, surgery, and related disciplines, but there are few data demonstrating that results apply to clinical settings. We asked "would results of a simulation-based study justify the same principal conclusions as those of a larger clinical study?" METHODS: We compared results from a randomized controlled trial in a simulated environment involving 80 cases at three centers with those from a randomized controlled trial in a clinical environment involving 1,075 cases. In both studies, we compared conventional methods of anesthetic management with the use of a multimodal system (SAFERsleep; Safer Sleep LLC, Nashville, Tennessee) designed to reduce drug administration errors. Forty anesthesiologists each managed two simulated scenarios randomized to conventional methods or the new system. We compared the rate of error in drug administration or recording for the new system versus conventional methods in this simulated randomized controlled trial with that in the clinical randomized controlled trial (primary endpoint). Six experts were asked to indicate a clinically relevant effect size. RESULTS: In this simulated randomized controlled trial, mean (95% CI) rates of error per 100 administrations for the new system versus conventional groups were 6.0 (3.8 to 8.3) versus 11.6 (9.3 to 13.8; P = 0.001) compared with 9.1 (6.9 to 11.4) versus 11.6 (9.3 to 13.9) in the clinical randomized controlled trial (P = 0.045). A 10 to 30% change was considered clinically relevant. The mean (95% CI) difference in effect size was 27.0% (-7.6 to 61.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of our simulated randomized controlled trial justified the same primary conclusion as those of our larger clinical randomized controlled trial, but not a finding of equivalence in effect size.

Can team training make surgery safer? Lessons for national implementation of a simulation-based programme.

AIM: Unintended patient harm is a major contributor to poor outcomes for surgical patients and often reflects failures in teamwork. To address this we developed a Multidisciplinary Operating Room Simulation (MORSim) intervention to improve teamwork in the operating room (OR) and piloted it with 20 OR teams in two of the 20 District Health Boards in New Zealand prior to national implementation. In this study, we describe the experience of those exposed to the intervention, challenges to implementing changes in clinical practice and suggestions for successful implementation of the programme at a regional or national level. METHODS: We undertook semi-structured interviews of a stratified random sample of MORSim participants 3-6 months after they attended the course. We explored their experiences of changes in clinical practice following MORSim. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed using a general inductive approach to develop themes into which interview data were coded. Interviews continued to the point of thematic saturation. RESULTS: Interviewees described adopting into practice many of the elements of the MORSim intervention and reported positive experiences of change in communication, culture and collaboration. They described sharing MORSim concepts with colleagues and using them in teaching and orientation of new staff. Reported barriers to uptake included uninterested colleagues, limited team orientation, communication hierarchies, insufficient numbers of staff exposed to MORSim and failure to prioritise time for team information sharing such as pre-case briefings. CONCLUSION: MORSim appears to have had lasting effects on reported attitudes and behaviours in clinical practice consistent with more effective teamwork and communication. This study adds to the accumulating body of evidence on the value of simulation-based team training and offers suggestions for implementing widespread, regular team training for OR teams.

Improved scores for observed teamwork in the clinical environment following a multidisciplinary operating room simulation intervention.

AIMS: We ran a Multidisciplinary Operating Room Simulation (MORSim) course for 20 complete general surgical teams from two large metropolitan hospitals. Our goal was to improve teamwork and communication in the operating room (OR). We hypothesised that scores for teamwork and communication in the OR would improve back in the workplace following MORSim. We used an extended Behavioural Marker Risk Index (BMRI) to measure teamwork and communication, because a relationship has previously been documented between BMRI scores and surgical patient outcomes. METHODS: Trained observers scored general surgical teams in the OR at the two study hospitals before and after MORSim, using the BMRI. RESULTS: Analysis of BMRI scores for the 224 general surgical cases before and 213 cases after MORSim showed BMRI scores improved by more than 20% (0.41 v 0.32, p<0.001). Previous research suggests that this improved teamwork score would translate into a clinically important reduction in complications and mortality in surgical patients. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated an improvement in scores for teamwork and communication in general surgical ORs following our intervention. These results support the use of simulation-based multidisciplinary team training for OR staff to promote better teamwork and communication, and potentially improve outcomes for general surgical patients.

Microbiological Contamination of Drugs during Their Administration for Anesthesia in the Operating Room.

BACKGROUND: The aseptic techniques of anesthesiologists in the preparation and administration of injected medications have not been extensively investigated, but emerging data demonstrate that inadvertent lapses in aseptic technique may be an important contributor to surgical site and other postoperative infections. METHODS: A prospective, open, microbiological audit of 303 cases in which anesthesiologists were asked to inject all bolus drugs, except propofol and antibiotics, through a 0.2-µm filter was performed. The authors cultured microorganisms, if present, from the 0.2-µm filter unit and from the residual contents of the syringes used for drawing up or administering drugs. Participating anesthesiologists rated ease of use of the filters after each case. RESULTS: Twenty-three anesthesiologists each anesthetized up to 25 adult patients. The authors isolated microorganisms from filter units in 19 (6.3%) of 300 cases (3 cases were excluded), including Staphylococcus capitis, Staphylococcus warneri, Staphylococcus epidermidis, Staphylococcus haemolyticus, Micrococcus luteus/lylae, Corynebacterium, and Bacillus species. The authors collected used syringes at the end of each case and grew microorganisms from residual drug in 55 of these 2,318 (2.4%) syringes including all the aforementioned microorganisms and also Kocuria kristinae, Staphylococcus aureus, and Staphylococcus hominus. Participants' average rating of ease of use of the filter units was 3.5 out of 10 (0 being very easy and 10 being very difficult). CONCLUSIONS: Microorganisms with the potential to cause infection are being injected (presumably inadvertently) into some patients during the administration of intravenous drugs by bolus during anesthesia. The relevance of this finding to postoperative infections warrants further investigation.

A behaviourally anchored rating scale for evaluating the use of the WHO surgical safety checklist: development and initial evaluation of the WHOBARS.

BACKGROUND: Realising the full potential of the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) to reduce perioperative harm requires the constructive engagement of all operating room (OR) team members during its administration. To facilitate research on SSC implementation, a valid and reliable instrument is needed for measuring OR team behaviours during its administration. We developed a behaviourally anchored rating scale (BARS) for this purpose. METHODS: We used a modified Delphi process, involving 16 subject matter experts, to compile a BARS with behavioural domains applicable to all three phases of the SSC. We evaluated the instrument in 80 adult OR cases and 30 simulated cases using two medical student raters and seven expert raters, respectively. Intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to assess inter-rater reliability. Internal consistency and instrument discrimination were explored. Sample size estimates for potential study designs using the instrument were calculated. RESULTS: The Delphi process resulted in a BARS instrument (the WHOBARS) with five behavioural domains. Intraclass correlation coefficients calculated from the OR cases exceeded 0.80 for 80% of the instrument's domains across the SSC phases. The WHOBARS showed high internal consistency across the three phases of the SSC and ability to discriminate among surgical cases in both clinical and simulated settings. Fewer than 20 cases per group would be required to show a difference of 1 point between groups in studies of the SSC, where α=0.05 and ß=0.8. CONCLUSION: We have developed a generic instrument for comprehensively rating the administration of the SSC and informing initiatives to realise its full potential. We have provided data supporting its capacity for discrimination, internal consistency and inter-rater reliability. Further psychometric evaluation is warranted.

Multidisciplinary operating room simulation-based team training to reduce treatment errors: a feasibility study in New Zealand hospitals.

AIMS: Communication failures in healthcare are frequent and linked to adverse events and treatment errors. Simulation-based team training has been proposed to address this. We aimed to explore the feasibility of a simulation-based course for all members of the operating room (OR) team, and to evaluate its effectiveness. METHODS: Members of experienced OR teams were invited to participate in three simulated clinical events using an integrated surgical and anesthesia model. We collected information on costs, Behavioural Marker of Risk Index (BMRI) (a measure of team information sharing) and participants' educational gains. RESULTS: We successfully recruited 20 full OR teams. Set up costs were NZ$50,000. Running costs per course were NZ$4,000, excluding staff. Most participants rated the course highly. BMRI improved significantly (P = 0.04) and thematic analysis identified educational gains for participants. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated feasibility of multidisciplinary simulation-based training for surgeons, anesthetists, nurses and anaesthetic technicians. The course showed evidence of participant learning and we obtained useful information on cost. There is considerable potential to extend this type of team-based simulation to improve the performance of OR teams and increase safety for surgical patients.

Read-back improves information transfer in simulated clinical crises.

BACKGROUND: Safe and effective healthcare is frustrated by failures in communication. Repeating back important information (read-back) is thought to enhance the effectiveness of communication across many industries. However, formal communication protocols are uncommon in healthcare teams. AIMS: We aimed to quantify the effect of read-back on the transfer of information between members of a healthcare team during a simulated clinical crisis. We hypothesised that reading back information provided by other team members would result in better knowledge of that information by the receiver than verbal response without read-back or no verbal response. METHOD: Postanaesthesia care unit nurses and anaesthetic assistants were given clinically relevant items of information at the start of 88 simulations. A clinical crisis prompted calling an anaesthetist, with no prior knowledge of the patient. Using video recordings of the simulations, we noted each time a piece of information was mentioned to the anaesthetist. Their response was coded as read-back, verbal response without read-back or no verbal response. RESULTS: If the anaesthetists read back the item of information, or otherwise verbally responded, they were, respectively, 8.27 (p<0.001) or 3.16 (p=0.03) times more likely to know the information compared with no verbal response. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that training healthcare teams to use read-back techniques could increase information transfer between team members with the potential for improved patient safety. More work is needed to confirm these findings.

Building the evidence on simulation validity: comparison of anesthesiologists' communication patterns in real and simulated cases.

BACKGROUND: Effective teamwork is important for patient safety, and verbal communication underpins many dimensions of teamwork. The validity of the simulated environment would be supported if it elicited similar verbal communications to the real setting. The authors hypothesized that anesthesiologists would exhibit similar verbal communication patterns in routine operating room (OR) cases and routine simulated cases. The authors further hypothesized that anesthesiologists would exhibit different communication patterns in routine cases (real or simulated) and simulated cases involving a crisis. METHODS: Key communications relevant to teamwork were coded from video recordings of anesthesiologists in the OR, routine simulation and crisis simulation and percentages were compared. RESULTS: The authors recorded comparable videos of 20 anesthesiologists in the two simulations, and 17 of these anesthesiologists in the OR, generating 400 coded events in the OR, 683 in the routine simulation, and 1,419 in the crisis simulation. The authors found no significant differences in communication patterns in the OR and the routine simulations. The authors did find significant differences in communication patterns between the crisis simulation and both the OR and the routine simulations. Participants rated team communication as realistic and considered their communications occurred with a similar frequency in the simulations as in comparable cases in the OR. CONCLUSION: The similarity of teamwork-related communications elicited from anesthesiologists in simulated cases and the real setting lends support for the ecological validity of the simulation environment and its value in teamwork training. Different communication patterns and frequencies under the challenge of a crisis support the use of simulation to assess crisis management skills.

Anaesthetic drug administration as a potential contributor to healthcare-associated infections: a prospective simulation-based evaluation of aseptic techniques in the administration of anaesthetic drugs.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the possibility that anaesthetists are administering potentially pathogenic micro-organisms to their patients. DESIGN: Prospective microbiological and observational study in a realistic simulated setting. PARTICIPANTS: Ten anaesthetists supported by 10 anaesthetic technicians. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: The presence or absence of organisms cultured from sterile intravenous bags used to collect drugs injected during the simulated cases and from the needles and the contents of the syringes used. The authors also observed the aseptic techniques used. RESULTS: Organisms were isolated from five of 38 (13%) bags from five of 20 simulated cases anaesthetised by four of 10 anaesthetists, 10 of 197 (5%) syringes and six of 17 (35%) needles. None of the anaesthetists washed their hands prior to entry, used the hand gel provided, disinfected the phial septa before drawing up drugs or disinfected the intravenous ports on the intravenous administration set before use. One was seen to recap a needle left on a syringe for possible reuse. Three participants were observed to place equipment such as stethoscopes, drug charts and pens on top of their inuse drug trays. CONCLUSION: The administration of intravenous drugs during anaesthesia may be an important factor in the genesis (or potentially the prevention) of healthcare-associated infection. These observations suggest room for improvement in the aseptic techniques of at least some anaesthetists when preparing and administering intravenous drugs. Confirmation of these findings in clinical settings is needed. STUDY REGISTRY NUMBER (FOR THE VASER STUDY): Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: Ref: ACTRN 12609000530224, https://www.anzctr.org.au/registry/trial_review.aspx?ID=308128; note that the work presented here is a subset of the registered trial and its outcomes were not included in this registration.

The effect of a simulation-based training intervention on the performance of established critical care unit teams.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the effectiveness of a simulation-based intervention on improving teamwork in multidisciplinary critical care teams managing airway and cardiac crises and compared simulation-based learning and case-based learning on scores for performance. DESIGN: Self-controlled randomized crossover study design with blinded assessors. SETTING: A simulated critical care ward, using a high-fidelity patient simulator, in a university simulation center. SUBJECTS: Forty teams from critical care units within the region comprising one doctor and three nurses. INTERVENTION: At the beginning and end of the 10-hr study day, each team undertook two preintervention and two postintervention assessment simulations (one airway, one cardiac on both occasions). The study day included presentations and discussions on human factors and crisis management, and airway and cardiac skills stations. For the intervention, teams were randomized to case-based learning or simulation-based learning for cardiac or airway scenarios. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Each simulation was recorded and independently rated by three blinded expert assessors using a structured rating tool with technical and behavioral components. Participants were surveyed 3 months later. We demonstrated significant improvements in scores for overall teamwork (p ≤ .002) and the two behavioral factors, "Leadership and Team Coordination" (p ≤ .002) and "Verbalizing Situational Information" (p ≤ .02). Scores for clinical management also improved significantly (p ≤ .003). We found no significant difference between simulation-based learning and case-based learning in the context of this study. Survey data supported the effectiveness of study day with responders reporting retention of learning and changes made to patient management. CONCLUSIONS: A simulation-based study day can improve teamwork in multidisciplinary critical care unit teams as measured in pre- and postcourse simulations with some evidence of subsequent changes to patient management. In the context of a full-day course, using a mix of simulation-based learning and case-based learnings seems to be an effective teaching strategy.

Evaluation of an instrument to measure teamwork in multidisciplinary critical care teams.

INTRODUCTION: Teamwork failures contribute to adverse events causing harm to patients. Establishing and maintaining a team and managing the tasks are active processes. Medical education largely ignores teamwork skills. However, lack of robust instruments to measure teamwork limits evaluation of interventions to improve it. The authors aimed to develop and validate an instrument to measure teamwork behaviours. METHODS: From existing literature, the authors developed an instrument, gaining rater consensus that the final 23 items were comprehensive, comprehensible and observable. Data on the instrument were obtained from three expert raters who scored videotaped simulations of 40 critical care teams (one doctor, three nurses) participating in four simulated emergencies. Exploratory Factor Analysis, Generalisability Analysis and rater interviews on assessor performance provided information on the properties of the instrument. RESULTS: Exploratory Factor Analysis found items clustered into three factors: Leadership and Team Coordination; Mutual Performance Monitoring; and Verbalising Situational Information. Internal consistencies (Cronbach's α) for these factors were 0.917, 0.915 and 0.893, respectively. The Generalisability coefficient for overall team behaviour was 0.78 and the G coefficients for the three factors were 0.85, 0.4 and 0.37, respectively. Variance Components and interview data provided insight into individual item performance. Significantly improved performance with time and seniority supported construct validity. DISCUSSION: The instrument performed well as an overall measure of team behaviour and reflected three dimensions of teamwork. Triangulation of information on the instrument, the factors and individual items will allow a methodical and informed approach to further development of the instrument. The ultimate goal is an instrument that can robustly evaluate interventions to improve team function in healthcare.