Dataset Information

Systematic review of methods for quantifying teamwork in the operating theatre.

ABSTRACT: Teamwork in the operating theatre is becoming increasingly recognized as a major factor in clinical outcomes. Many tools have been developed to measure teamwork. Most fall into two categories: self-assessment by theatre staff and assessment by observers. A critical and comparative analysis of the validity and reliability of these tools is lacking.MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched following PRISMA guidelines. Content validity was assessed using measurements of inter-rater agreement, predictive validity and multisite reliability, and interobserver reliability using statistical measures of inter-rater agreement and reliability. Quantitative meta-analysis was deemed unsuitable.Forty-eight articles were selected for final inclusion; self-assessment tools were used in 18 and observational tools in 28, and there were two qualitative studies. Self-assessment of teamwork by profession varied with the profession of the assessor. The most robust self-assessment tool was the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ), although this failed to demonstrate multisite reliability. The most robust observational tool was the Non-Technical Skills (NOTECHS) system, which demonstrated both test-retest reliability (P > 0·09) and interobserver reliability (Rwg = 0·96).Self-assessment of teamwork by the theatre team was influenced by professional differences. Observational tools, when used by trained observers, circumvented this.

SUBMITTER: Li N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5952378 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Systematic review of methods for quantifying teamwork in the operating theatre.

Li N N Marshall D D Sykes M M McCulloch P P Shalhoub J J Maruthappu M M

BJS open 20180215 2

<h4>Background</h4>Teamwork in the operating theatre is becoming increasingly recognized as a major factor in clinical outcomes. Many tools have been developed to measure teamwork. Most fall into two categories: self-assessment by theatre staff and assessment by observers. A critical and comparative analysis of the validity and reliability of these tools is lacking.<h4>Methods</h4>MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched following PRISMA guidelines. Content validity was assessed using measurem ...[more]

PMID: 29951628

Similar Datasets

Project description:Several studies have reported on the negative impact of interruptions and distractions on anaesthetic, surgical and team performance in the operating theatre. This study aimed to gain a deeper understanding of these events and why they remain part of everyday clinical practice. We used a mixed methods observational study design. We scored each distractor and interruption according to an established scheme during induction of anaesthesia and the surgical procedure for 58 general surgical cases requiring general anaesthesia. We made field notes of observations, small conversations and meetings. We observed 64 members of staff for 148 hours and recorded 4594 events, giving a mean (SD) event rate of 32.8 (16.3) h-1 . The most frequent events observed during induction of anaesthesia were door movements, which accounted for 869 (63%) events, giving a mean (SD) event rate of 28.1 (14.5) h-1 . These, however, had little impact. The most common events observed during surgery were case-irrelevant verbal communication and smartphone usage, which accounted for 1020 (32%) events, giving a mean (SD) event rate of 9.0 (4.2) h-1 . These occurred mostly in periods of low work-load in a sub-team. Participants ranged from experiencing these events as severe disruption through to a welcome distraction that served to keep healthcare professionals active during low work-load, as well as reinforcing the social connections between colleagues. Mostly, team members showed no awareness of the need for silence among other sub-teams and did not vocalise the need for silence to others. Case-irrelevant verbal communication and smartphone usage may serve a physical and psychological need. The extent to which healthcare professionals may feel disrupted depends on the situation and context. When a team member was disrupted, a resilient team response often lacked. Reducing disruptive social activity might be a powerful strategy to develop a habit of cross-monitoring and mutual help across surgical and anaesthetic sub-teams. Further research is needed on how to bridge cultural borders and develop resilient interprofessional behaviours.

Project description:ObjectivesTo predict the amount of teamwork that takes place throughout a surgery, based on performing a preoperative safety standards (surgical safety checklist and surgical count) and to explore factors affecting patient safety and staff psychological safety during a surgery, based on interprofessional teamwork.MethodsThis mixed methods study included quantitative and qualitative analyses. Quantitative data included 2,184 direct observations of surgical cases with regard to the performance of safety standards during surgeries in 29 hospitals, analyzed using multivariate binary logistic regressions. Qualitative data were obtained from an analysis of 25 semi-structured interviews with operating room (OR) clinicians and risk managers, using an inductive thematic analysis approach.ResultsAnalysis of the OR observations revealed that a lack of teamwork in the preoperative "sign-in" phase doubled the chances of there being a lack of teamwork during surgery [odds ratio = 1.972, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.741, 2.233, p < 0.001] and during the "time-out" phase (odds ratio = 2.142, 95% CI 1.879, 2.441, p < 0.001). Consistent presence of staff during surgery significantly increased teamwork, by 21% for physicians and 24% for nurses (p < 0.05), but staff turnover significantly decreased teamwork, by 73% for physicians (p < 0.05). Interview data indicated that patient safety and staff psychological safety are related to a perception of a collaborative team role among OR staff, with mutual commitment and effective interprofessional communication.ConclusionsHealthcare organizations should consider the key finding of this study when trying to identify factors that affect teamwork during a surgery. Effective preoperative teamwork positively affects intraoperative teamwork, as does the presence of more clinicians participating in a surgery, with no turnover. Other factors include working in a fixed, designated team, led by a surgeon, which functions with effective interprofessional communication that promotes patient safety and staff psychological safety.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the optimal method for quantifying and monitoring overdiagnosis in cancer screening over time.DesignSystematic review of primary research studies of any design that quantified overdiagnosis from screening for nine types of cancer. We used explicit criteria to critically appraise individual studies and assess strength of the body of evidence for each study design (double blinded review), and assessed the potential for each study design to accurately quantify and monitor overdiagnosis over time.Data sourcesPubMed and Embase up to 28 February 2014; hand searching of systematic reviews.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesEnglish language studies of any design that quantified overdiagnosis for any of nine common cancers (prostate, breast, lung, colorectal, melanoma, bladder, renal, thyroid, and uterine); excluded case series, case reports, and reviews that only reported results of other studies.Results52 studies met the inclusion criteria. We grouped studies into four methodological categories: (1) follow-up of a well designed randomized controlled trial (n=3), which has low risk of bias but may not be generalizable and is not suitable for monitoring; (2) pathological or imaging studies (n=8), drawing conclusions about overdiagnosis by examining biological characteristics of cancers, a simple design limited by the uncertain assumption that the measured characteristics are highly correlated with disease progression; (3) modeling studies (n=21), which can be done in a shorter time frame but require complex mathematical equations simulating the natural course of screen detected cancer, the fundamental unknown question; and (4) ecological and cohort studies (n=20), which are suitable for monitoring over time but are limited by a lack of agreed standards, by variable data quality, by inadequate follow-up time, and by the potential for population level confounders. Some ecological and cohort studies, however, have addressed these potential weaknesses in reasonable ways.ConclusionsWell conducted ecological and cohort studies in multiple settings are the most appropriate approach for quantifying and monitoring overdiagnosis in cancer screening programs. To support this work, we need internationally agreed standards for ecological and cohort studies and a multinational team of unbiased researchers to perform ongoing analysis.

Project description:BackgroundOperating theatre personnel are at increased risk for transmission of blood borne pathogens when passing sharp instruments. The hands-free technique, whereby a tray or other means are used to eliminate simultaneous handling of sharp instruments, has been recommended.AimsTo prospectively evaluate the effectiveness of the hands-free technique in reducing the incidence of percutaneous injuries, contaminations, and glove tears arising from handling sharp instruments.MethodsFor each of 3765 operations carried out in main and surgical day care operating theatres in a large urban hospital, over six months, circulating nurses recorded the proportion of use of the hands-free technique during each operation, as well as other features of the operation. The hands-free technique, considered to be used when 75% or more of the passes in an operation were done in this way, was used in 42% of operations. The relative rate of incidents (percutaneous injuries, contaminations, and glove tears) in operations where the hands-free technique was used and not used, with adjustment via multiple logistic regression for the different risk profiles of the two sets of operations, was calculated.ResultsA total of 143 incidents (40 percutaneous injuries, 51 contaminations, and 52 glove tears) were reported. In operations with greater than 100 ml blood loss, the incident rate was 4% (18/486) when the hands-free technique was used and 10% (90/880) when it was not, approximately 60% less. When adjusted for differences in type and duration of surgery, emergency status, noisiness, time of day, and number present for 75% of the operation, the reduction in the rate was 59% (95% CI 23% to 72%). In operations with less than 100 ml blood loss, the corresponding rates were 1.4% (15/1051) when the hands-free technique was used and 1.5% (19/1259) when it was not used. Adjustment for differences in risk factors did not alter the difference.ConclusionsAlthough not effective in all operations, use of the hands-free technique was effective in operations with more substantial blood loss.

Dataset Information

Systematic review of methods for quantifying teamwork in the operating theatre.

Publications

Systematic review of methods for quantifying teamwork in the operating theatre.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets