Team FIRST framework: Identifying core teamwork competencies critical to interprofessional healthcare curricula.

Interprofessional healthcare team function is critical to the effective delivery of patient care. Team members must possess teamwork competencies, as team function impacts patient, staff, team, and healthcare organizational outcomes. There is evidence that team training is beneficial; however, consensus on the optimal training content, methods, and evaluation is lacking. This manuscript will focus on training content. Team science and training research indicates that an effective team training program must be founded upon teamwork competencies. The Team FIRST framework asserts there are 10 teamwork competencies essential for healthcare providers: recognizing criticality of teamwork, creating a psychologically safe environment, structured communication, closed-loop communication, asking clarifying questions, sharing unique information, optimizing team mental models, mutual trust, mutual performance monitoring, and reflection/debriefing. The Team FIRST framework was conceptualized to instill these evidence-based teamwork competencies in healthcare professionals to improve interprofessional collaboration. This framework is founded in validated team science research and serves future efforts to develop and pilot educational strategies that educate healthcare workers on these competencies.

Handoffs and Teamwork: A Framework for Care Transition Communication.

BACKGROUND: Handoffs occur frequently in the medical domain and are associated with up to 80% of medical errors. Although research has progressed, handoffs largely remain inadequate. The absence of an appropriate conceptual model for handoffs hinders the purposeful design and evaluation of handoff procedures. This article presents a theoretical model of the major input, team process, and output variables that should be considered during a handoff. THEORETICAL MODEL BACKGROUND: The model integrates three theoretical frameworks that capture the various inputs, processes, and outputs surrounding handoff events through the lens of teamwork. OVERVIEW OF THE MODEL: Specifically, the model describes the environment, organization, people, and tools as inputs. Communication, leadership, coordination, and decision making serve as the processes, and the outputs are the organization, teams, providers, and patients.

Does standardisation improve post-operative anaesthesia handoffs? Meta-analyses on provider, patient, organisational, and handoff outcomes.

Anaesthesia handoffs are associated with negative outcomes (e.g. inappropriate treatments, post-operative complications, and in-hospital mortality). To minimise these adverse outcomes, federal bodies (e.g. Joint Commission) have mandated handoff standardisation. Due to the proliferation of handoff interventions and research, there is a need to meta-analyze anaesthesia handoffs. Therefore, we performed meta-analyses on the provider, patient, organisational, and handoff outcomes related to post-operative anaesthesia handoff protocols. We meta-analysed 41 articles with post-operative anaesthesia handoffs that implemented a standardised handoff protocol. Compared to no standardisation, a standardised post-operative anaesthesia handoff changed provider outcomes with an OR of 4.03 (95% CI 3.20-5.08), patient outcomes with an OR of 1.49 (95% CI 1.32-1.69), organisational outcomes with an OR of 4.25 (95% CI 2.51-7.19), handoff outcomes with an OR of 8.52 (95% CI 7.05-10.31). Our meta-analyses demonstrate that standardised post-operative anaesthesia handoffs altered patient, provider, organisational, and handoff outcomes. Practitioner Summary: We conducted meta-analyses to assess the effects of post-operative anaesthesia handoff standardisation on provider, patient, organisational, and handoff outcomes. Our findings suggest that standardised post-operative anaesthesia handoffs changed all listed outcomes in a positive direction. We discuss the implications of these findings as well as notable limitations in this literature base.

Safety gaps in medical team communication: Closing the loop on quality improvement efforts in the cardiac catheterization lab.

Closed-loop communication (CLC) is a fundamental aspect of effective communication, critical in the cardiac catheterization laboratory (cath lab) where physician orders are verbal. Complete CLC is typically a hospital and national mandate. Deficiencies in CLC have been shown to impair quality of care. Single center observational study, CLC for physician verbal orders in the cath lab were assessed by direct observation during a 5-year quality improvement effort. Performance feedback and educational efforts were used over this time frame to improve CLC, and the effects of each intervention assessed. Responses to verbal orders were characterized as complete (all important parameters of the order repeated, the mandated response), partial, acknowledgment only, or no response. During the first observational period of 101 cases, complete CLC occurred in 195 of 515 (38%) medication orders and 136 of 235 (50%) equipment orders. Complete CLC improved over time with various educational efforts, (p < 0.001) but in the final observation period of 117 cases, complete CLC occurred in just 259 of 328 (79%) medication orders and 439 of 581 (76%) equipment orders. Incomplete CLC was associated with medication and equipment errors. CLC of physician verbal orders was used suboptimally in this medical team setting. Baseline data indicate that physicians and staff have normalized weak, unreliable communication methods. Such lapses were associated with errors in order implementation. A subsequent 5-year quality improvement program resulted in improvement but a sizable minority of unacceptable responses. This represents an opportunity to improve patient safety in cath labs.

The Morbidity and Mortality Conference: Opportunities for Enhancing Patient Safety.

ABSTRACT: Since the 20th century, health care institutions have used morbidity and mortality conferences (MMCs) as a forum to discuss complicated cases and fatalities to capitalize on lessons learned. Medical technology, health care processes, and the teams who provide care have evolved over time, but the format of the MMC has remained relatively unchanged. The present article outlines 5 key areas for improvement within the MMC along with prescriptive and actionable recommendations for mitigating these challenges. This work incorporates the contributions of numerous researchers and practitioners from the educational, training, debrief, and health care fields. With the best practices and lessons learned from various domains in mind, we recommend optimizing the MMC by (1) encouraging a culture that leverages expertise from multiple sources, (2) allocating ample time for innovative thinking, (3) using a global approach that considers individual, team, and system-level factors, (4) leveraging learnings from errors as well as near misses, and (5) promoting communication, innovative thinking, and actionable planning. The 5 evidence-based recommendations herein serve to ensure that MMCs are structured learning events that promote, encourage, and support safe, reliable care. Furthermore, the outlined recommendations seek to capitalize upon the MMC's opportunity to engage early discovery as well as proactive risk assessment and action-oriented solutions.

Improving handover competency in preclinical medical and health professions students: establishing the reliability and construct validity of an assessment instrument.

BACKGROUND: As part of the worldwide call to enhance the safety of patient handovers of care, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) requires that all graduating students "give or receive a patient handover to transition care responsibly" as one of its Core Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) for Entering Residency. Students therefore require educational activities that build the necessary teamwork skills to perform structured handovers. To date, a reliable instrument designed to assess teamwork competencies, like structured communication, throughout their preclinical and clinical years does not exist. METHOD: Our team developed an assessment instrument that evaluates both the use of structured communication and two additional teamwork competencies necessary to perform safe patient handovers. This instrument was utilized to assess 192 handovers that were recorded from a sample of 229 preclinical medical students and 25 health professions students who participated in a virtual course on safe patient handovers. Five raters were trained on utilization of the assessment instrument, and consensus was established. Each handover was reviewed independently by two separate raters. RESULTS: The raters achieved 72.22 % agreement across items in the reviewed handovers. Krippendorff's alpha coefficient to assess inter-rater reliability was 0.6245, indicating substantial agreement among the raters. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) demonstrated the orthogonal characteristics of items in this instrument with rotated item loadings onto three distinct factors providing preliminary evidence of construct validity. CONCLUSIONS: We present an assessment instrument with substantial reliability and preliminary evidence of construct validity designed to evaluate both use of structured handover format as well as two team competencies necessary for safe patient handovers. Our assessment instrument can be used by educators to evaluate learners' handoff performance as early as their preclinical years and is broadly applicable in the clinical context in which it is utilized. In the journey to optimize safe patient care through improved teamwork during handovers, our instrument achieves a critical step in the process of developing a validated assessment instrument to evaluate learners as they seek to accomplish this goal.

Toward the Development of the Perfect Medical Team: Critical Components for Adaptation.

OBJECTIVE: Medical teams play a vital role in the delivery of safe and effective patient care. Toward the goal of becoming a high-reliability health system, the authors posit that the "perfect" medical team is one that develops their attitudes, behaviors, and cognitions (ABCs) to facilitate adaptation. METHODS: The authors synthesized the literature (frameworks, measures, and conceptual models) on teamwork in healthcare (k = 161) to develop an evidence-based model of ABCs, which current evidence suggests, are requisite for medical team adaptation. Clinical vignettes were garnered from the media and other sources to illustrate how these ABCs-or failure in using these ABCs-can lead to positive or negative events in healthcare. RESULTS: The resulting model contains the most frequently included ABCs in healthcare teamwork models, measures, and frameworks: psychological safety (41, 25.5%), situation assessment (66, 41.0%), shared mental models (56, 34.8%), team leadership behaviors (78, 48.4%), role awareness (64, 39.7%), team decision-making (61, 37.9%) and planning (41, 25.5%), conflict management (51, 31.7%), task coordination (71, 44.1%), adaptation (46, 28.6%), and backup behavior (54, 33.5%). The authors posit that communication and organizational conditions-other highly cited components-(141, 87.6%, and 90, 55.9%, respectively) serve as moderators of these relationships. CONCLUSIONS: The authors argue that each of these ABCs is critical for enhancing team adaptation and subsequently increasing patient safety. A list of practical tools and educational strategies that teams and organizations can use to improve their performance on each of these ABCs is provided.

Telerounding: A scoping review and implications for future healthcare practice.

Introduction: Telerounding is slated to become an important avenue for future healthcare practice. As utilization of telerounding is increasing, a review of the literature is necessary to distill themes and identify critical considerations for the implementation of telerounding. We provide evidence of the utility of telerounding and considerations to support its implementation in future healthcare practice based on a scoping review. Method: We collected articles from nine scientific databases from the earliest dated available articles to August 2020. We identified whether each article centered on telerounding policies, regulations, or practice. We also organized information from each article and sorted themes into four categories: sample characteristics, technology utilized, study constructs, and research outcomes. Results: We identified 21 articles related to telerounding that fit our criteria. All articles emphasized telerounding practice. Most articles reported data collected from surgical wards, had adult samples, and utilized robotic telerounding systems. Most articles reported null effects or positive effects on their measured variables. Discussion: Providers and patients can benefit from the effective implementation of telerounding. Telerounding can support patient care by reducing travel expenses and opportunities for infection. Evidence suggests that telerounding can reduce patient length of stay. Patients and providers are willing to utilize telerounding, but patient willingness is influenced by age and education. Telerounding does not appear to negatively impact satisfaction or patient care. Organizations seeking to implement telerounding systems must consider education for their providers, logistics associated with hardware and software, scheduling, and characteristics of the organizational context that can support telerounding. Considerations provided in this article can mitigate difficulties associated with the implementation of telerounding.

Dissecting Communication Barriers in Healthcare: A Path to Enhancing Communication Resiliency, Reliability, and Patient Safety.

ABSTRACT: Suboptimal exchange of information can have tragic consequences to patient's safety and survival. To this end, the Joint Commission lists communication error among the most common attributable causes of sentinel events. The risk management literature further supports this finding, ascribing communication error as a major factor (70%) in adverse events. Despite numerous strategies to improve patient safety, which are rooted in other high reliability industries (e.g., commercial aviation and naval aviation), communication remains an adaptive challenge that has proven difficult to overcome in the sociotechnical landscape that defines healthcare. Attributing a breakdown in information exchange to simply a generic "communication error" without further specification is ineffective and a gross oversimplification of a complex phenomenon. Further dissection of the communication error using root cause analysis, a failure modes and effects analysis, or through an event reporting system is needed. Generalizing rather than categorizing is an oversimplification that clouds clear pattern recognition and thereby prevents focused interventions to improve process reliability. We propose that being more precise when describing communication error is a valid mechanism to learn from these errors. We assert that by deconstructing communication in healthcare into its elemental parts, a more effective organizational learning strategy emerges to enable more focused patient safety improvement efforts. After defining the barriers to effective communication, we then map evidence-based recovery strategies and tools specific to each barrier as a tactic to enhance the reliability and validity of information exchange within healthcare.

The Anatomy and Physiology of Teaming in Cancer Care Delivery: A Conceptual Framework.

Care coordination challenges for patients with cancer continue to grow as expanding treatment options, multimodality treatment regimens, and an aging population with comorbid conditions intensify demands for multidisciplinary cancer care. Effective teamwork is a critical yet understudied cornerstone of coordinated cancer care delivery. For example, comprehensive lung cancer care involves a clinical "team of teams"-or clinical multiteam system (MTS)-coordinating decisions and care across specialties, providers, and settings. The teamwork processes within and between these teams lay the foundation for coordinated care. Although the need to work as a team and coordinate across disciplinary, organizational, and geographic boundaries increases, evidence identifying and improving the teamwork processes underlying care coordination and delivery among the multiple teams involved remains sparse. This commentary synthesizes MTS structure characteristics and teamwork processes into a conceptual framework called the cancer MTS framework to advance future cancer care delivery research addressing evidence gaps in care coordination. Included constructs were identified from published frameworks, discussions at the 2016 National Cancer Institute-American Society of Clinical Oncology Teams in Cancer Care Workshop, and expert input. A case example in lung cancer provided practical grounding for framework refinement. The cancer MTS framework identifies team structure variables and teamwork processes affecting cancer care delivery, related outcomes, and contextual variables hypothesized to influence coordination within and between the multiple clinical teams involved. We discuss how the framework might be used to identify care delivery research gaps, develop hypothesis-driven research examining clinical team functioning, and support conceptual coherence across studies examining teamwork and care coordination and their impact on cancer outcomes.

An Event-based Approach to Measurement: Facilitating Observational Measurement in Highly Variable Clinical Settings.

BACKGROUND: Translational research in medical education requires the ability to rigorously measure learner performance in actual clinical settings; however, current measurement systems cannot accommodate the variability inherent in many patient care  environments. This is especially problematic in emergency medicine, where patients represent a wide spectrum of severity for a single clinical presentation. Our objective is to describe and implement EBAM, an event-based approach to measurement that can be applied to actual emergency medicine clinical events. METHODS: We used a four-step event-based approach to create an emergency department trauma resuscitation patient care measure. We applied the measure to a database of 360 actual trauma resuscitations recorded in a Level I trauma center using trained raters. A subset (n = 50) of videos was independently rated in duplicate to determine inter-rater reliability. Descriptive analyses were performed to describe characteristics of resuscitation events and Cohen's kappa was used to calculate reliability. RESULTS: The methodology created a metric containing both universal items that are applied to all trauma resuscitation events and conditional items that only apply in certain situations. For clinical trauma events, injury severity scores ranged from 1 to 75 with a mean (±SD) of 21 (±15) and included both blunt (254/360; 74%) and penetrating (86/360; 25%) traumatic injuries, demonstrating the diverse nature of the clinical encounters. The mean (±SD) Cohen's kappa for patient care items was 0.7 (±0.3). CONCLUSION: We present an event-based approach to performance assessment that may address a major gap in translational education research. Our work centered on assessment of patient care behaviors during trauma resuscitation. More work is needed to evaluate this approach across a diverse array of clinical events.

Safety gaps in medical team communication: Results of quality improvement efforts in a cardiac catheterization laboratory.

OBJECTIVES: To assess closed-loop communications (readback), a fundamental aspect of effective communication, among cardiovascular teams and assess improvement efforts. BACKGROUND: Effective communication within teams is essential to assure safety and optimal outcomes. Readback of verbal physician orders is a hospital and national requirement. METHODS: Single-center observational study, where the readback responses to physician verbal orders in the catheterization laboratory were characterized over three distinct time intervals from 2015 to 2017. Performance feedback and focused education on the value of readbacks was provided to the teams in two waves, with subsequent remeasurement. Responses to verbal orders were characterized as complete (all important parameters of the order repeated for verification), partial, acknowledgement only, or no response. Changes in readback performance after quality interventions were assessed. RESULTS: During the first-observational period of 101 cases, complete readback occurred in 195 of 515 (38%) medication orders and 136 of 235 (58%) equipment orders. After initial quality improvement efforts, 102 cases were observed. In these, 298 of 480 (62%) medication orders had complete readback, and 210 of 420 (50%) equipment orders had complete readback. After additional quality improvement efforts, 168 cases were observed. In these, 506 of 723 (70%) medication orders had complete readback, and 630 of 1,061 (59%) equipment orders had complete readback. Overall, medication order readback improved over time (correlation = 0.26 [-0.30, -0.21]; p < 0.001), but equipment order readback did not (correlation = 0.02 [-0.07, 0.03]; p = 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: Closed-loop communication of physician verbal orders was used infrequently in this medical team setting and proved difficult to fully improve. This is an important safety gap.

Teams in a New Era: Some Considerations and Implications.

Teams have been a ubiquitous structure for conducting work and business for most of human history. However, today's organizations are markedly different than those of previous generations. The explosion of innovative ideas and novel technologies mandate changes in job descriptions, roles, responsibilities, and how employees interact and collaborate. These advances have heralded a new era for teams and teamwork in which previous teams research and practice may not be fully appropriate for meeting current requirements and demands. In this article, we describe how teams have been historically defined, unpacking five important characteristics of teams, including membership, interdependence, shared goals, dynamics, and an organizationally bounded context, and relating how these characteristics have been addressed in the past and how they are changing in the present. We then articulate the implications these changes have on how we study teams moving forward by offering specific research questions.

Considerations for Multiteam Systems in Emergency Medical Services.

OBJECTIVE: Despite good intentions, mishaps in teamwork continue to affect patient's lives and plague the medical community at large and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) in particular. Effective and efficient management of patient care necessitates that sets of multiple teams (i.e., multiteam systems [MTSs] - EMS ground crews, EMS air crews, dispatch, and receiving hospital teams) seamlessly work together. Although advances have been made to improve teams, little research has been dedicated to enhancing MTSs especially in the critical yet often under studied domain of EMS. The purpose of this paper is to assist the pre-hospital community in strengthening patient care by presenting considerations unique to multiteam systems. METHODS: We synthesized the literature pertinent to multi-team systems and emergency medical services. RESULTS: From this synthesis, we derived five unique considerations: goals, boundary spanning, adaptation, leadership, and social identity. CONCLUSIONS: MTSs are prevalent in prehospital care, as they define how multiple component healthcare teams work together to intervene in emergency situations. We provided some initial directions regarding considerations for success in EMS MTSs based on existing research, but we also recognize the need for further study on these issues.

Human Factors Applied to Perioperative Process Improvement.

This article discusses some of the major theories of the science of human factors/ergonomics (HF/E) in relation to perioperative medicine, with a focus on safety and errors within these systems. The discussion begins with human limitations based in cognition, decision making, stress, and fatigue. Given these limitations, the importance of measuring human performance is discussed. Finally, using the HF/E perspective on safety, high-level recommendations are provided for increasing safety within the perioperative environment.

Predictors of Nursing Graduate School Success.

Several factors influence success in nursing graduate school. This study collected retrospective data from students in a nursing graduate program to determine which factors predict success. Data were analyzed using a multiple regression analysis to predict success (i.e., graduation grade point average [GPA]) from student characteristics. The predictors were nursing course GPA, undergraduate science GPA, GPA upon admission to nursing graduate school, experience in a specialty, and the duration of that experience. Results indicate that admission, nursing, and undergraduate science GPA are more important for predicting success than previous experience. The predictors account for approximately 80 percent of the variance (R = .80).