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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

Teammate Familiarity, Teamwork, and Risk of Workplace Injury in Emergency Medical Services Teams.

INTRODUCTION: Increased teammate familiarity in emergency medical services (EMS) promotes development of positive teamwork and protects against workplace injury. METHODS: Measures were collected using archival shift records, workplace injury data, and cross-sectional surveys from a nationally representative sample of 14 EMS agencies employing paramedics, prehospital nurses, and other EMS clinicians. One thousand EMS clinicians were selected at random to complete a teamwork survey for each of their recent partnerships and tested the hypothesized role of teamwork as a mediator in the relationship between teammate familiarity and injury with the PROCESS macro. RESULTS: We received 2566 completed surveys from 333 clinicians, of which 297 were retained. Mean participation was 40.5% (standard deviation [SD] = 20.5%) across EMS agencies. Survey respondents were primarily white (93.8%), male (67.3%), and ranged between 21-62 years of age (M = 37.4, SD = 9.7). Seventeen percent were prehospital nurses. Respondents worked a mean of 3 shifts with recent teammates in the 8 weeks preceding the survey (M = 3.06, SD = 4.4). We examined data at the team level, which suggest positive views of teamwork (M = 5.92, SD = 0.69). Our hypothesis that increased teammate familiarity protects against adverse safety outcomes through development of positive teamwork was not supported. Teamwork factor Partner Adaptability and Backup Behavior is a likely mediator (odds ratio = 1.03, P = .05). When dyad familiarity is high and there are high levels of backup behavior, the likelihood of injury is increased. DISCUSSION: The relationship between teammate familiarity and outcomes is complex. Teammate adaptation and backup behavior is a likely mediator of this relationship in EMS teams with greater familiarity.

Meta-Analyses of the Effects of Standardized Handoff Protocols on Patient, Provider, and Organizational Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: The overall purpose was to understand the effects of handoff protocols using meta-analytic approaches. BACKGROUND: Standardized protocols have been required by the Joint Commission, but meta-analytic integration of handoff protocol research has not been conducted. METHOD: The primary outcomes investigated were handoff information passed during transitions of care, patient outcomes, provider outcomes, and organizational outcomes. Sources included Medline, SAGE, Embase, PsycINFO, and PubMed, searched from the earliest date available through March 30th, 2015. Initially 4,556 articles were identified, with 4,520 removed. This process left a final set of 36 articles, all which included pre-/postintervention designs implemented in live clinical/hospital settings. We also conducted a moderation analysis based on the number of items contained in each protocol to understand if the length of a protocol led to systematic changes in effect sizes of the outcome variables. RESULTS: Meta-analyses were conducted on 34,527 pre- and 30,072 postintervention data points. Results indicate positive effects on all four outcomes: handoff information (g = .71, 95% confidence interval [CI] [.63, .79]), patient outcomes (g = .53, 95% CI [.41, .65]), provider outcomes (g = .51, 95% CI [.41, .60]), and organizational outcomes (g = .29, 95% CI [.23, .35]). We found protocols to be effective, but there is significant publication bias and heterogeneity in the literature. Due to publication bias, we further searched the gray literature through greylit.org and found another 347 articles, although none were relevant to this research. Our moderation analysis demonstrates that for handoff information, protocols using 12 or more items led to a significantly higher proportion of information passed compared with protocols using 11 or fewer items. Further, there were numerous negative outcomes found throughout this meta-analysis, with trends demonstrating that protocols can increase the time for handover and the rate of errors of omission. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that handoff protocols tend to improve results on multiple levels, including handoff information passed and patient, provider, and organizational outcomes. These findings come with the caveat that publication bias exists in the literature on handoffs. Instances where protocols can lead to negative outcomes are also discussed. APPLICATION: Significant effects were found for protocols across provider types, regardless of expertise or area of clinical focus. It also appears that more thorough protocols lead to more information being passed, especially when those protocols consist of 12 or more items. Given these findings, publication bias is an apparent feature of this literature base. Recommendations to reduce the apparent publication bias in the field include changing the way articles are screened and published.

Enhancing the effectiveness of team debriefings in medical simulation: more best practices.

BACKGROUND: Teamwork is a vital component of optimal patient care. In both clinical settings and medical education, a variety of approaches are used for the development of teamwork skills. Yet, for team members to receive the full educational benefit of these experiential learning opportunities, postsimulation feedback regarding the team's performance must be incorporated. Debriefings are among the most widely used form of feedback regarding team performance. A team debriefing is a facilitated or guided dialogue that takes place between team members following an action period to review and reflect on team performance. Team members discuss their perceptions of what occurred, why it occurred, and how they can enhance their performance. Simulation debriefing allows for greater control and planning than are logistically feasible for on-the-job performance. It is also unique in that facilitators of simulation-based training are generally individuals external to the team, whereas debriefing on the job is commonly led by an internal team member or conducted without a specified facilitator. Consequently, there is greater opportunity for selecting and training facilitators for team simulation events. Thirteen Best Practices: The 13 best practices, extracted from existing training and debriefing research, are organized under three general categories: (1) preparing for debriefing, (2) facilitator responsibilities during debriefing, and (3) considerations for debriefing content. For each best practice, considerations and practical implications are provided to facilitate the implementation of the recommended practices. CONCLUSION: The 13 best practices presented in this article should help health care organizations by guiding team simulation administrators, self-directed medical teams, and debriefing facilitators in the optimization of debriefing to support learning for all team members.

Utilizing Telemedicine in the Trauma Intensive Care Unit: Does It Impact Teamwork?

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to examine the impact of a telemedical robot on trauma intensive care unit (TICU) clinician teamwork (i.e., team attitudes, behaviors, and cognitions) during patient rounds. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-two healthcare providers who conduct rounds volunteered to take surveys assessing teamwork attitudes and cognitions at three time periods: (1) the onset of the study, (2) the end of the 30-day control period, and (3) the end of the 30-day experimental period, which immediately followed the control period. Rounds were recorded throughout the 30-day control period and 30-day experimental period to observe provider behaviors. For the initial 30 days, there was no access to telemedicine. For the final 30 days, the rounding healthcare providers had access to the RP-7 robot (Intouch Health Inc., Santa Barbara, CA), a telemedical tool that can facilitate patient rounds conducted away from bedside. RESULTS: Using a one-tailed, one-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) to compare trust at Times 1, 2, and 3, there was no significant effect on trust: F(2, 14)=1.20, p=0.16. When a one-tailed, one-way repeated-measures ANOVA to compare transactive memory systems (TMS) at Times 1, 2, and 3 was conducted, there was no significant effect on TMS: F(2, 15)=1.33, p=0.15. We conducted a one-tailed, one-way repeated-measures ANOVA to compare team psychological safety at Times 1, 2, and 3, and there was no significant effect on team psychological safety: F(2,15)=1.53, p=0.12. There was a significant difference in communication between rounds with and without telemedicine [t(25)=-1.76, p<0.05], such that there was more task-based communication during telerounds. Telemedicine increased task-based communication and did not negatively impact team trust, psychological safety, or TMS during rounds. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine may offer advantages for some teamwork competencies without sacrificing the efficacy of others and may be adopted by intact rounding teams without hindering teamwork.

Eight critical factors in creating and implementing a successful simulation program.

BACKGROUND: Recognizing the need to minimize human error and adverse events, clinicians, researchers, administrators, and educators have strived to enhance clinicians' knowledge, skills, and attitudes through training. Given the risks inherent in learning new skills or advancing underdeveloped skills on actual patients, simulation-based training (SBT) has become an invaluable tool across the medical education spectrum. The large simulation, training, and learning literature was used to provide a synthesized yet innovative and "memorable" heuristic of the important facets of simulation program creation and implementation, as represented by eight critical "S" factors-science, staff, supplies, space, support, systems, success, and sustainability. These critical factors advance earlier work that primarily focused on the science of SBT success, to also include more practical, perhaps even seemingly obvious but significantly challenging components of SBT, such as resources, space, and supplies. SYSTEMS: One of the eight critical factors-systems-refers to the need to match fidelity requirements to training needs and ensure that technological infrastructure is in place. The type of learning objectives that the training is intended to address should determine these requirements. For example, some simulators emphasize physical fidelity to enable clinicians to practice technical and nontechnical skills in a safe environment that mirrors real-world conditions. Such simulators are most appropriate when trainees are learning how to use specific equipment or conduct specific procedures. CONCLUSION: The eight factors-science, staff, supplies, space, support, systems, success, and sustainability-represent a synthesis of the most critical elements necessary for successful simulation programs. The order of the factors does not represent a deliberate prioritization or sequence, and the factors' relative importance may change as the program evolves.

The 6 "ws" of rapid response systems: best practices for improving development, implementation, and evaluation.

Delays in care have been cited as one of the primary contributors of preventable mortality; thus, quality patient safety is often contingent upon the delivery of timely clinical care. Rapid response systems (RRSs) have been touted as one mechanism to improve the ability of suitable staff to respond to deteriorating patients quickly and appropriately. Rapid response systems are defined as highly skilled individual(s) who mobilize quickly to provide medical care in response to clinical deterioration. While there is mounting evidence that RRSs are a valid strategy for managing obstetric emergencies, reducing adverse events, and improving patient safety, there remains limited insight into the practices underlying the development and execution of these systems. Therefore, the purpose of this article was to synthesize the literature and answer the primary questions necessary for successfully developing, implementing, and evaluating RRSs within inpatient settings-the Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How of RRSs.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Does teamwork improve performance in the operating room? A multilevel evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Medical care is a team effort, especially as patient cases are more complex. Communication, cooperation, and coordination are vital to effective care, especially in complex service lines such as the operating room (OR). Team training, specifically the TeamSTEPPS training program, has been touted as one methodology for optimizing teamwork among providers and increasing patient safety. Although such team-training programs have transformed the culture and outcomes of other dynamic, high-risk industries such as aviation and nuclear power, evidence of team training effectiveness in health care is still evolving. Although providers tend to react positively to many training programs, evidence that training contributes to important behavioral and patient safety outcomes is lacking. METHOD: A multilevel evaluation of the TeamSTEPPS training program was conducted within the OR service line with a control location. The evaluation was a mixed-model design with one between-groups factor (TeamSTEPPS training versus no training) and two within-groups factors (time period, team). The groups were located at separate campuses to minimize treatment diffusion. Trainee reactions, learning, behaviors in the OR, and proxy outcome measures such as the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSOPS) and Operating Room Management Attitudes Questionnaire (ORMAQ) were collected. RESULTS: All levels of evaluation demonstrated positive results. The trained group demonstrated significant increases in the quantity and quality of presurgical procedure briefings and the use of quality teamwork behaviors during cases. Increases were also found in perceptions of patient safety culture and teamwork attitudes. DISCUSSION: The hospital system has integrated elements of TeamSTEPPS into orientation training provided to all incoming hospital employees, including nonclinical staff.