Knowing your team in the intensive care unit: an ethnographic study on familiarity.

Effective interprofessional team function is integral to high-quality care in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, little is known about how familiarity develops among teams, which may be an important antecedent to effective team function and quality care. To examine team familiarity and how it impacts ICU team function and care, we conducted an ethnographic study in four ICUs (two medical ICUs, one mixed medical-surgical ICU, and one surgical ICU) in two community hospitals and one academic medical center. We conducted 57.5 h of observation, 26 shadowing experiences, and 26 interviews across the four ICUs sequentially. We used thematic analysis to examine familiarity among the team. We found that ICU team members become familiar with their team through interpersonal, relational interactions, which involved communication, time working together, social interactions, trust, and respect. Our findings underscore the relational aspect of effective teams and demonstrate that time working together, social interactions, communication, developing trust, and respect are pathways to familiarity and optimal team function. Leveraging unique and creative ways to enhance the relational aspects of ICU teams could be an area for future research and lead to improved ICU outcomes.

Development and Evaluation of a Data-Driven, Interactive Workshop to Facilitate Communication and Teamwork in Ambulatory Medical Oncology Settings.

Background: While adverse events and toxicities related to cancer drug therapy in the ambulatory oncology setting are common and often rooted in communication challenges, few studies have examined the problems of communication or tested tools to improve communication in this unique, high-risk setting. Objective: To determine the feasibility and acceptability of a virtual interdisciplinary communication Workshop designed to strengthen communication across ambulatory oncology teams members. Methods: Surveys of patients and clinicians in one ambulatory oncology clinic were analyzed and informed the communication intervention: an interdisciplinary virtual Workshop. Workshop evaluation included an implementation survey measure and a structured debrief with Workshop attendees. Results: 87 patients and 56 clinicians participated in pre-workshop surveys that revealed patient satisfaction with timely care and information, yet a range of rating communication experiences with the clinical team, and clinicians perceiving a high amount of organizational safety, yet rated discussion of alternatives to normal work processes low. Survey results guided reflection and discussion within the Workshop. Six clinicians participated in the interactive Workshop. Feasibility and acceptability of the virtual Workshop were supported by formative and summative data, along with suggestions for improvement. Conclusions: The patient and clinician surveys coupled with an interactive virtual Workshop were feasible and acceptable. Implications for Practice: The Workshop identified opportunities for individual- and system-level improvements in clinical team communication. This promising strategy requires replication in larger, diverse practice samples. Foundational: Clinicians accepted an interactive workshop that incorporated clinic-specific data and communication strategies. The program is feasible and acceptable in ambulatory oncology settings.

Team dynamics in a COVID-19 intensive care unit: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, new intensive care units (ICUs) were created and clinicians were assigned or volunteered to work in these ICUs. These new ICU teams were newly formed and may have had varying practice styles which could affect team dynamics. The purpose of our qualitative descriptive study was to explore clinician perceptions of team dynamics in this newly formed ICU and specifically understand the challenges and potential improvements in this environment to guide future planning and preparedness in ICUs. METHODS: We conducted 14 semistructured one-on-one interviews with six nurses and eight physicians from a newly formed 36- to 50-bed medical ICU designed for COVID-19 patients in a teaching hospital. We purposively sampled and recruited ICU nurses, medical/surgical nurses, fellows, and attending physicians (with pulmonary/critical care and anaesthesia training) to participate. Participants were asked about team dynamics in the ICU, its challenges, and potential solutions. We then used a rapid analytic approach by first deductively categorising interview data into themes, based on our interview guide, to create a unique data summary for each interview. Then, these data were transferred to a matrix to compare data across all interviews and inductively analysed these data to provide deeper insights into team dynamics in ICUs. RESULTS: We identified two themes that impacted team dynamics positively (facilitator) and negatively (barrier): interpersonal factors (individual character traits and interactions among clinicians) and structural factors (unit-level factors affecting workflow, organisation, and administration). Clinicians had several suggestions to improve team dynamics (e.g., scheduling to ensure clinicians familiar with one another worked together, standardisation of care processes across teams, and disciplines). CONCLUSIONS: In a newly formed COVID ICU, interpersonal factors and structural factors impacted the team's ability to work together. Considering team dynamics during ICU reorganisation is crucial and requires thoughtful attention to interpersonal and structural factors.

Patient-reported outcomes collected in ambulatory oncology practices: Feasibility, patterns, and correlates.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the feasibility of soliciting outcomes from adults who received chemotherapy treatment for cancer and describe the patterns and correlates of patient-reported toxicities. DATA SOURCES: Patient survey data from 29 Michigan ambulatory oncology practices collected in 2017. STUDY DESIGN: Secondary analysis of patient survey data. Descriptive statistics were generated at the patient and practice levels. Thematic analysis of open-text comments identified clusters of frequently reported toxicities. DATA COLLECTION METHODS: Patients completed 11 items from the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Using a 5-point Likert scale, patients rated the frequency of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and pain; the severity of nausea, vomiting, constipation, numbness/tingling, and pain; and how much numbness/tingling and pain interfered with usual or daily activities. Patients could also report two toxicities in open-text comments. Finally, patients reported unplanned health care service for toxicity or side effect management. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Of 3565 eligible patients, 2245 participated (63%) and 457 (20%) rated at least one toxicity as severe/very severe. Across practices, the proportion of patients who reported at least one severe/very severe toxicity ranged from 8% to 50%. Troubling toxicities included pain frequency (mean 2.3, SD 1.3), pain severity (2.1, 1.1), and diarrhea frequency (1.9, 1.0). From completed assessments, 1653 (74%) reported at least one toxicity in open-text comments; fatigue (n = 182), stomach discomfort (n = 53), and skin/nail changes (n = 41) were most frequently reported. Regarding consequences, 156 patients (7%) reported unplanned health care service use: 41 (26%) visited an emergency department and 32 (21%) were admitted to a hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Querying patients on chemotherapy treatment experiences and toxicities was feasible. Toxicity rates varied across practices, which informed quality improvement. Toxicity severity and service use incidence exceed previously published trial data, particularly for pain, fatigue, and gastrointestinal issues. Open-text questions enabled exploration with newer treatment regimens.