Association Between Surgeon/Anesthesiologist Sex Discordance and 1-year Mortality Among Adults Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery: A Population-based Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between surgeon-anesthesiologist sex discordance and patient mortality after noncardiac surgery. BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests different practice patterns exist among female and male physicians. However, the influence of physician sex on team-based practices in the operating room and subsequent patient outcomes remains unclear in the context of noncardiac surgery. METHODS: We conducted a population-based, retrospective cohort study of adult Ontario residents who underwent index, inpatient noncardiac surgery between January 2007 and December 2017. The primary exposure was physician sex discordance (ie, the surgeon and anesthesiologist were of the opposite sex). The primary outcome was 1-year mortality. The association between physician sex discordance and patient outcomes was modeled using multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression with adjustment for relevant physician, patient, and hospital characteristics. RESULTS: Of 541,209 patients, 158,084 (29.2%) were treated by sex-discordant physician teams. Physician sex discordance was associated with a lower rate of mortality at 1 year [5.2% vs. 5.7%; adjusted HR: 0.95 (0.91-0.99)]. Patients treated by teams composed of female surgeons and male anesthesiologists were more likely to be alive at 1 year than those treated by all-male physician teams [adjusted HR: 0.90 (0.81-0.99)]. CONCLUSIONS: Noncardiac surgery patients had a lower likelihood of 1-year mortality when treated by sex-discordant surgeon-anesthesiologist teams. The likelihood of mortality was further reduced if the surgeon was female. Further research is needed to explore the underlying mechanisms of these observations and design strategies to diversify operating room teams to optimize performance and patient outcomes.

Using an intersectionality lens to explore barriers and enablers to hepatitis C point-of-care testing: a qualitative study among people who inject drugs and service providers.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is a significant global health burden, particularly among people who inject drugs. Rapid point-of-care HCV testing has emerged as a promising approach to improve HCV detection and linkage to care in harm reduction organizations such as needle and syringe programs. The objective of this study was to use an intersectionality lens to explore the barriers and enablers to point-of-care HCV testing in a needle and syringe program. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with clients (people who inject drugs) and service providers in a large community organization focused on the prevention of sexually transmitted and blood borne infections and harm reduction in Montreal, Canada. An intersectionality lens was used alongside the Theoretical Domains Framework to guide the formulation of research questions as well as data collection, analysis, and interpretation. RESULTS: We interviewed 27 participants (15 clients, 12 providers). For clients, four themes emerged: (1) understanding and perceptions of HCV testing, (2) the role of an accessible and inclusive environment, (3) the interplay of emotions and motivations in decision-making, and (4) the impact of intersectional stigma related to HCV, behaviors, and identities. For providers, five themes emerged: (1) knowledge, skills, and confidence for HCV testing, (2) professional roles and their intersection with identity and lived experience, (3) resources and integration of services, (4) social and emotional factors, and (5) behavioral regulation and incentives for HCV testing. Intersectional stigma amplified access, emotional and informational barriers to HCV care for clients. In contrast, identity and lived experience acted as powerful enablers for providers in the provision of HCV care. CONCLUSION: The application of an intersectionality lens provides a nuanced understanding of multilevel barriers and enablers to point-of-care HCV testing. Findings underscore the need for tailored strategies that address stigma, improve provider roles and communication, and foster an inclusive environment for equitable HCV care. Using an intersectionality lens in implementation research can offer valuable insights, guiding the design of equity-focused implementation strategies.

Effectiveness of interprofessional teamwork interventions for improving occupational well-being among perioperative healthcare providers: a systematic review.

The occupational well-being of healthcare providers is crucial for safe and effective patient care, especially in the complex, high acuity operating room (OR) setting. There has been a recent proliferation of interventions to improve teamwork in the OR setting, but the impact of these interventions on clinician occupational well-being has yet to be systematically assessed. This systematic review aimed to summarize the impact of interprofessional teamwork interventions on occupational well-being among perioperative healthcare providers. We included all qualitative or quantitative peer-reviewed studies assessing a multidisciplinary teamwork intervention including members of at least two professions. We included seven studies which involved checklists (n = 2), simulation-based training (n = 2), and various teamwork development and training programs (n = 3). Five of the seven included studies reported no significant effect on job satisfaction, while one found a significant negative association between the intervention and job satisfaction (p < .0001), and another showed significant decrease in worker stress. Our findings highlight the gaps in our understanding of the impact of interprofessional teamwork interventions on healthcare worker well-being in the perioperative environment and the multi-level factors influencing OR teamwork, intervention implementation, and well-being across the different professions.

Analyzing interprofessional teamwork in the operating room: An exploratory observational study using conventional and alternative approaches.

Intraoperative teamwork is vital for patient safety. Conventional tools for studying intraoperative teamwork typically rely on behaviorally anchored rating scales applied at the individual or team level, while others capture narrative information across several units of analysis. This prospective observational study characterizes teamwork using two conventional tools (Operating Theatre Team Non-Technical Skills Assessment Tool [NOTECHS]; Team Emergency Assessment Measure [TEAM]), and one alternative approach (modified-Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety [SEIPS] model). We aimed to explore the advantages and disadvantages of each for providing feedback to improve teamwork practice. Fifty consecutive surgical cases at a Canadian academic hospital were recorded with the OR Black Box®, analyzed by trained raters, and summarized descriptively. Teamwork performance was consistently high within and across cases rated with NOTECHS and TEAMS. For cases analyzed with the modified-SEIPS tool, both optimal and suboptimal teamwork behaviors were identified, and team resilience was frequently observed. NOTECHS and TEAM provided summative assessments and overall pattern descriptions, while SEIPS facilitated a deeper understanding of teamwork processes. As healthcare organizations continue to prioritize teamwork improvement, SEIPS may provide valuable insights regarding teamwork behavior and the broader context influencing performance. This may ultimately enhance the development and effectiveness of multi-level teamwork interventions.

Selecting implementation models, theories, and frameworks in which to integrate intersectional approaches.

BACKGROUND: Models, theories, and frameworks (MTFs) provide the foundation for a cumulative science of implementation, reflecting a shared, evolving understanding of various facets of implementation. One under-represented aspect in implementation MTFs is how intersecting social factors and systems of power and oppression can shape implementation. There is value in enhancing how MTFs in implementation research and practice account for these intersecting factors. Given the large number of MTFs, we sought to identify exemplar MTFs that represent key implementation phases within which to embed an intersectional perspective. METHODS: We used a five-step process to prioritize MTFs for enhancement with an intersectional lens. We mapped 160 MTFs to three previously prioritized phases of the Knowledge-to-Action (KTA) framework. Next, 17 implementation researchers/practitioners, MTF experts, and intersectionality experts agreed on criteria for prioritizing MTFs within each KTA phase. The experts used a modified Delphi process to agree on an exemplar MTF for each of the three prioritized KTA framework phases. Finally, we reached consensus on the final MTFs and contacted the original MTF developers to confirm MTF versions and explore additional insights. RESULTS: We agreed on three criteria when prioritizing MTFs: acceptability (mean = 3.20, SD = 0.75), applicability (mean = 3.82, SD = 0.72), and usability (median = 4.00, mean = 3.89, SD = 0.31) of the MTF. The top-rated MTFs were the Iowa Model of Evidence-Based Practice to Promote Quality Care for the 'Identify the problem' phase (mean = 4.57, SD = 2.31), the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research for the 'Assess barriers/facilitators to knowledge use' phase (mean = 5.79, SD = 1.12), and the Behaviour Change Wheel for the 'Select, tailor, implement interventions' phase (mean = 6.36, SD = 1.08). CONCLUSIONS: Our interdisciplinary team engaged in a rigorous process to reach consensus on MTFs reflecting specific phases of the implementation process and prioritized each to serve as an exemplar in which to embed intersectional approaches. The resulting MTFs correspond with specific phases of the KTA framework, which itself may be useful for those seeking particular MTFs for particular KTA phases. This approach also provides a template for how other implementation MTFs could be similarly considered in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework Registration: osf.io/qgh64.

Tranexamic acid for prevention of bleeding in cesarean delivery: An overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Bleeding is the leading cause of maternal mortality in the world. Tranexamic acid reduces bleeding in trauma and surgery. Several systematic reviews of randomized trials have investigated tranexamic acid in the prevention of bleeding in cesarean delivery. However, the conclusions from systematic reviews are conflicting. This overview aims to summarize the evidence and explore the reasons for conflicting conclusions across the systematic reviews. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was conducted from inception to April 2021. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessments were performed by two independent reviewers. A Measurement Tool to Assess Reviews 2 and the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews were used for study appraisal. A qualitative synthesis of evidence is presented. RESULTS: In all, 14 systematic reviews were included in our analysis. Across these reviews, there were 32 relevant randomized trials. A modest reduction in blood transfusions and bleeding outcomes was found by most systematic reviews. Overall confidence in results varied from low to critically low. All of the included systematic reviews were at high risk of bias. Quality of evidence from randomized trials was uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic reviews investigating prophylactic tranexamic acid in cesarean delivery are heterogeneous in terms of methodological and reporting quality. Tranexamic acid may reduce blood transfusion and bleeding outcomes, but rigorous well-designed research is needed due to the limitations of the included studies. Data on safety and adverse effects are insufficient to draw conclusions.

'Doing' or 'using' intersectionality? Opportunities and challenges in incorporating intersectionality into knowledge translation theory and practice.

Intersectionality is a widely adopted theoretical orientation in the field of women and gender studies. Intersectionality comes from the work of black feminist scholars and activists. Intersectionality argues identities such as gender, race, sexuality, and other markers of difference intersect and reflect large social structures of oppression and privilege, such as sexism, racism, and heteronormativity. The reach of intersectionality now extends to the fields of public health and knowledge translation. Knowledge translation (KT) is a field of study and practice that aims to synthesize and evaluate research into an evidence base and move that evidence into health care practice. There have been increasing calls to bring gender and other social issues into the field of KT. Yet, as scholars outline, there are few guidelines for incorporating the principles of intersectionality into empirical research. An interdisciplinary, team-based, national health research project in Canada aimed to bring an intersectional lens to the field of knowledge translation. This paper reports on key moments and resulting tensions we experienced through the project, which reflect debates in intersectionality: discomfort with social justice, disciplinary divides, and tokenism. We consider how our project advances intersectionality practice and suggests recommendations for using intersectionality in health research contexts. We argue that while we encountered many challenges, our process and the resulting co-created tools can serve as a valuable starting point and example of how intersectionality can transform fields and practices.

How gender shapes interprofessional teamwork in the operating room: a qualitative secondary analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite substantial implications for healthcare provider practice and patient outcomes, gender has yet to be systematically explored with regard to interprofessional operating room (OR) teamwork. We aimed to explore and describe how gender and additional social identity factors shape experiences and perceptions of teamwork in the OR. METHODS: This study was a qualitative secondary analysis of semi-structured interviews with OR team members conducted between November 2018 and July 2019. Participants were recruited across hospitals in Ontario, Canada. We conducted both purposive and snowball sampling until data saturation was reached. Transcripts were analyzed thematically by two independent research team members, moving from open to axial coding. RESULTS: Sixty-six interviews of OR healthcare professionals were completed: anesthesia (n=17), nursing (n=19), perfusion (n=2), and surgery (n=26). Traditional gender roles, norms, and stereotypes were perceived and experienced by both women and men, but with different consequences. Both women and men participants described challenges that women face in the OR, such as being perceived negatively for displaying leadership behaviours. Participants also reported that interactions and behaviours vary depending on the team gender composition, and that other social identities, such as age and race, often interact with gender. Nevertheless, participants indicated a belief that the influence of gender in the OR may be modified. CONCLUSIONS: The highly gendered reality of the OR creates an environment conducive to breakdowns in communuication and patient safety risks in addition to diminishing team morale, psychological safety, and provider well-being. Consequently, until teamwork interventions adequately account for gender, they are unlikely to be optimally effective or sustainable.

Implementation of the Operating Room Black Box Research Program at the Ottawa Hospital Through Patient, Clinical, and Organizational Engagement: Case Study.

BACKGROUND: A large proportion of surgical patient harm is preventable; yet, our ability to systematically learn from these incidents and improve clinical practice remains limited. The Operating Room Black Box was developed to address the need for comprehensive assessments of clinical performance in the operating room. It captures synchronized audio, video, patient, and environmental clinical data in real time, which are subsequently analyzed by a combination of expert raters and software-based algorithms. Despite its significant potential to facilitate research and practice improvement, there are many potential implementation challenges at the institutional, clinician, and patient level. This paper summarizes our approach to implementation of the Operating Room Black Box at a large academic Canadian center. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to contribute to the development of evidence-based best practices for implementing innovative technology in the operating room for direct observation of the clinical performance by using the case of the Operating Room Black Box. Specifically, we outline the systematic approach to the Operating Room Black Box implementation undertaken at our center. METHODS: Our implementation approach included seeking support from hospital leadership; building frontline support and a team of champions among patients, nurses, anesthesiologists, and surgeons; accounting for stakeholder perceptions using theory-informed qualitative interviews; engaging patients; and documenting the implementation process, including barriers and facilitators, using the consolidated framework for implementation research. RESULTS: During the 12-month implementation period, we conducted 23 stakeholder engagement activities with over 200 participants. We recruited 10 clinician champions representing nursing, anesthesia, and surgery. We formally interviewed 15 patients and 17 perioperative clinicians and identified key themes to include in an information campaign run as part of the implementation process. Two patient partners were engaged and advised on communications as well as grant and protocol development. Many anticipated and unanticipated challenges were encountered at all levels. Implementation was ultimately successful, with the Operating Room Black Box installed in August 2018, and data collection beginning shortly thereafter. CONCLUSIONS: This paper represents the first step toward evidence-guided implementation of technologies for direct observation of performance for research and quality improvement in surgery. With technology increasingly being used in health care settings, the health care community should aim to optimize implementation processes in the best interest of health care professionals and patients.

Using an artificial intelligence tool can be as accurate as human assessors in level one screening for a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) offers a promising solution to expedite various phases of the systematic review process such as screening. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the accuracy of an AI tool in identifying eligible references for a systematic review compared to identification by human assessors. METHODS: For the case study (a systematic review of knowledge translation interventions), we used a diagnostic accuracy design and independently assessed for eligibility a set of articles (n = 300) using human raters and the AI system DistillerAI (Evidence Partners, Ottawa, Canada). We analysed a series of 64 possible confidence levels for the AI's decisions and calculated several standard parameters of diagnostic accuracy for each. RESULTS: When set to a lower AI confidence threshold of 0.1 or greater and an upper threshold of 0.9 or lower, DistillerAI made article selection decisions very similarly to human assessors. Within this range, DistillerAI made a decision on the majority of articles (93-100%), with a sensitivity of 1.0 and specificity ranging from 0.9 to 1.0. CONCLUSION: DistillerAI appears to be accurate in its assessment of articles in a case study of 300 articles. Further experimentation with DistillerAI will establish its performance among other subject areas.

Applying an intersectionality lens to the theoretical domains framework: a tool for thinking about how intersecting social identities and structures of power influence behaviour.

BACKGROUND: A key component of the implementation process is identifying potential barriers and facilitators that need to be addressed. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) is one of the most commonly used frameworks for this purpose. When applying the TDF, it is critical to understand the context in which behaviours occur. Intersectionality, which accounts for the interface between social identity factors (e.g. age, gender) and structures of power (e.g. ageism, sexism), offers a novel approach to understanding how context shapes individual decision-making and behaviour. We aimed to develop a tool to be used alongside applications of the TDF to incorporate an intersectionality lens when identifying implementation barriers and enablers. METHODS: An interdisciplinary Framework Committee (n = 17) prioritized the TDF as one of three models, theories, and frameworks (MTFs) to enhance with an intersectional lens through a modified Delphi approach. In collaboration with the wider Framework Committee, a subgroup considered all 14 TDF domains and iteratively developed recommendations for incorporating intersectionality considerations within the TDF and its domains. An iterative approach aimed at building consensus was used to finalize recommendations. RESULTS: Consensus on how to apply an intersectionality lens to the TDF was achieved after 12 rounds of revision. Two overarching considerations for using the intersectionality alongside the TDF were developed by the group as well as two to four prompts for each TDF domain to guide interview topic guides. Considerations and prompts were designed to assist users to reflect on how individual identities and structures of power may play a role in barriers and facilitators to behaviour change and subsequent intervention implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Through an expert-consensus approach, we developed a tool for applying an intersectionality lens alongside the TDF. Considering the role of intersecting social factors when identifying barriers and facilitators to implementing research evidence may result in more targeted and effective interventions that better reflect the realities of those involved.

Association of intraoperative anaesthesia handovers with patient morbidity and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Handover of anaesthesia patient care during surgery is common; however, its association with patient outcome is unclear. This systematic review aimed to assess the impact of anaesthesia handover during surgery on patient outcome. METHODS: All prospective and retrospective clinical studies specifically investigating the association of intraoperative transfer of anaesthesia care between anaesthesia providers in the operating room with patient morbidity and mortality were included. Searches were conducted from inception to April 24, 2019 in Medline, Medline in Process, CINAHL, and Embase. Reference lists of included studies were searched. Studies were assessed for eligibility and data were extracted by independent reviewers in duplicate with disagreements resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. Risk of bias was assessed in duplicate using the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Data were summarised narratively given substantial heterogeneity. An exploratory meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model for a subset of comparable studies. RESULTS: Eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Six studies focused on patients as the unit of analysis (npatients=605 678) and two focused on anaesthesia providers as the unit of analysis (nproviders=307). Seven studies identified a relationship between anaesthesia handovers and adverse patient outcomes, whereas one suggested that handover may be beneficial to error detection or rectification. Included studies were of fair or good quality. Meta-analysis of four studies found a 40% increased risk of patients experiencing an adverse event when an anaesthesia handover occurs during the procedure (pooled risk ratio=1.40; 95% confidence interval, 1.19 to 1.65; P<0.001; I2=98%). CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative anaesthesia handovers generally increase morbidity and mortality for surgical patients but could have the potential to improve safety in certain contexts. Future research should determine the specific handover characteristics that impact safety.

La définition des moments critiques et non critiques en salle d'opération : une étude de consensus Delphi modifiée.

BACKGROUND: While the operating room (OR) has significantly benefited from aviation strategies to improve safety, the rate of avoidable human errors remains relatively high. One key aviation strategy that has yet to be formally established in the OR is the "sterile cockpit" rule, which prohibits all non-essential behaviours during critical moments of a flight. Applying this rule to the OR may enhance patient safety, but the critical moments of surgery need to be defined first. METHODS: This study used a modified Delphi methodology to determine critical moments during surgery according to OR team members across institutions, professions, and specialties. Analysis occurred after each round. The stopping criterion was consensus on 80% of survey items or no change in the mean score for any individual item between two consecutive rounds. RESULTS: The first round included 304 respondents. Of these, 115 completed the second-round survey, and 75 completed all three rounds (27 nurses, 29 anesthesiologists, 19 surgeons). Critical moments obtained by consensus were: induction of anesthesia; emergence from anesthesia; preoperative briefing; final counts at the end of the procedure; anesthesiologist- or surgeon-relevant intraoperative event; handovers; procedure-specific high-risk surgical moments; crisis resource management situations; medication and equipment preparation; and key medication administration. CONCLUSIONS: By defining the most critical moments of surgery, future research can determine the relative importance of behaviour and actions at each stage and target interventions to these stages.

RéSUMé: CONTEXTE: Alors que la salle d'opération (SOP) bénéficie considérablement des stratégies de l'aviation pour améliorer la sécurité, le taux d'erreurs humaines évitables y demeure relativement élevé. L'une des stratégies clés de l'aviation qui doit encore être mise en place de manière formelle en SOP est la règle de la « cabine de pilotage stérile ¼, qui interdit tout comportement non essentiel pendant les moments critiques d'un vol. L'application de cette règle à la SOP pourrait améliorer la sécurité des patients, mais les moments critiques d'une chirurgie doivent d'abord être définis. MéTHODE: Cette étude a utilisé une méthodologie Delphi modifiée afin de déterminer les moments critiques pendant une chirurgie selon les membres des équipes de SOP en provenance de différentes institutions, professions et spécialités. Une analyse a eu lieu après chaque itération. Le critère d'arrêt était un consensus sur 80 % des items du sondage ou aucun changement dans la note moyenne obtenue pour n'importe quel item individuel entre deux itérations consécutives. RéSULTATS: La première série a inclus 304 répondants. Parmi ceux-ci, 115 ont complété le deuxième sondage, et 75 ont complété les trois séries de questions (27 infirmiers/infirmières, 29 anesthésiologistes, 19 chirurgiens/chirurgiennes). Les moments critiques retenus par consensus étaient : l'induction de l'anesthésie; l'émergence de l'anesthésie; le temps d'arrêt préopératoire; les décomptes finaux à la fin de l'intervention; les événements peropératoires importants pour l'anesthésiologiste ou le chirurgien; les transferts; les moments chirurgicaux à risque élevé spécifiques à l'intervention; les situations de gestion de crise des ressources; la préparation des médicaments et du matériel; et l'administration de médicaments clés. CONCLUSION: En définissant les moments les plus critiques de la chirurgie, les recherches futures pourront déterminer l'importance relative des comportements et des actes à chaque étape et cibler les interventions en fonction de ces étapes.

Sex and gender analysis in knowledge translation interventions: challenges and solutions.

Sex and gender considerations are understood as essential components of knowledge translation in the design, implementation and reporting of interventions. Integrating sex and gender ensures more relevant evidence for translating into the real world. Canada offers specific funding opportunities for knowledge translation projects that integrate sex and gender. This Commentary reflects on the challenges and solutions for integrating sex and gender encountered in six funded knowledge translation projects. In 2018, six research teams funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research's Institute of Gender and Health met in Ottawa to discuss these challenges and solutions. Eighteen participants, including researchers, healthcare professionals, trainees and members of the Institute of Gender and Health, were divided into two groups. Two authors conducted qualitative coding and thematic analysis of the material discussed. Six themes emerged, namely Consensus building, Guidance, Design and outcomes effectiveness, Searches and recruitment, Data access and collection, and Intersection with other determinants of health. Solutions included educating stakeholders on the use of sex and gender concepts, triangulating perspectives of researchers and end-users, and participating in organisations and committees to influence policies and practices. Unresolved challenges included difficulty integrating sex and gender considerations with principles of patient-oriented research, a lack of validated measurement tools for gender, and a paucity of experts in intersectionality. We discuss our findings in the light of observations of similar initiatives elsewhere to inform the further progress of integrating sex and gender into the knowledge translation of health services research findings.

Interprofessional communication in the operating room: a narrative review to advance research and practice.

PURPOSE: Communication failures are often at the root of adverse events for surgical patients; however, evidence to inform best communication practice in the operating room is relatively limited. This narrative review outlines the importance of interprofessional communication for surgical patient safety, maps its barriers and facilitators, and highlights key strategies for enhancing communication quality in the operating room. Based on this review, a research agenda to inform best practices in interprofessional operating room communication is suggested. SOURCE: The non-systematic literature search included searches of relevant databases (Medline (via OVID), PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL), relevant grey literature sources (e.g., patient safety institute websites), and reference lists of selected articles. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Effective interprofessional communication plays a critical role in the operating room, but faces many challenges at the individual, team, environmental, and organizational level. Factors that support effective communication are less documented than barriers, but include team integration, flattened hierarchies, and structure/standardization. Checklists, safety briefings, and teamwork/communication training are the most common techniques used to improve communication in the operating room. Of all communication techniques, closed-loop communication may be the most practical and inexpensive strategy. CONCLUSION: The perioperative community should be encouraged to implement existing effective solutions to improve communication and investigate creative solutions to identified barriers. Improved methods of data collection are needed to enhance evidence quality, increase understanding of communication barriers and facilitators, and identify the best strategy to advance practice.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les problèmes de communication sont souvent à l'origine des événements indésirables pour les patients chirurgicaux, et les données probantes pour guider les meilleures pratiques de communication en salle d'opération sont encore relativement limitées. Ce compte rendu narratif souligne l'importance de la communication interprofessionnelle pour la sécurité des patients chirurgicaux, cartographie ses obstacles et les éléments la facilitant, et présente des stratégies clés pour améliorer la qualité de la communication en salle d'opération. Sur la base de ce compte rendu, un agenda de recherche visant à guider les meilleures pratiques en matière de communication interprofessionnelle en salle d'opération est proposé. SOURCE: Notre recherche de littérature non méthodique s'est intéressée aux bases de données pertinentes (Medline (via OVID), PubMed, Scopus, et EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL), aux sources pertinentes de la littérature grise (par ex., sites Internet des instituts sur la sécurité des patients), et aux listes de références des articles sélectionnés. CONSTATATIONS PRINCIPALES: Une communication interprofessionnelle efficace joue un rôle crucial en salle d'opération, mais elle est souvent mise à l'épreuve tant aux niveaux de l'individu, de l'équipe, de l'environnement que de l'organisation. Les facteurs facilitant une communication efficace sont moins documentés que les obstacles; ils comprennent l'intégration de l'équipe, une structure organisationnelle horizontale et la structure/standardisation. Les listes de contrôle, les réunions sur la sécurité et la formation en travail d'équipe/communications sont les techniques les plus fréquemment utilisées pour améliorer la communication en salle d'opération. Parmi toutes les techniques de communication, la communication en circuit fermé pourrait constituer la stratégie la plus pratique et la moins onéreuse. CONCLUSION: La communauté périopératoire devrait être encouragée à appliquer les solutions existantes ayant prouvé leur efficacité afin d'améliorer la communication et explorer des solutions créatives pour pallier les obstacles identifiés. De meilleures méthodes de collecte de données sont nécessaires pour améliorer la qualité des données probantes, augmenter la compréhension des obstacles et des aides à la communication, et identifier les meilleures stratégies pour améliorer la pratique.

Measuring non-technical skills of anaesthesiologists in the operating room: a systematic review of assessment tools and their measurement properties.

BACKGROUND: Non-technical skills, such as communication or leadership, are integral to clinical competence in anaesthesia. There is a need for valid and reliable tools to measure anaesthetists' non-technical performance for both initial and continuing professional development. This systematic review aims to summarise the measurement properties of existing assessment tools to determine which tool is most robust. METHODS: Embase (via OVID), Medline and Medline in Process (via OVID), and reference lists of included studies and previously published relevant systematic reviews were searched (through August 2017). Quantitative studies investigating the measurement properties of tools used to assess anaesthetists' intraoperative non-technical skills, either in a clinical or simulated environment, were included. Pairs of independent reviewers determined eligibility and extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using the COSMIN checklist. RESULTS: The search yielded 978 studies, of which 14 studies describing seven tools met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 12 involved simulated crisis settings only. The measurement properties of the Anaesthetists' Non-Technical Skills (ANTS) tool were most commonly assessed (n=9 studies), with studies of two types of validity (content, concurrent) and two types of reliability (internal consistency, interrater). Most of these studies, however, were at serious risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Though there are seven tools for assessing the non-technical skills of anaesthetists, only ANTS has been extensively investigated with regard to its measurement properties. ANTS appears to have acceptable validity and reliability for assessing non-technical skills of anaesthetists in both simulated and clinical settings. Future research should consider additional clinical contexts and types of measurement properties.

Efficacy of searching in biomedical databases beyond MEDLINE in identifying randomised controlled trials on hyperbaric oxygen treatment.

Introduction: Literature searches are routinely used by researchers for conducting systematic reviews as well as by healthcare providers, and sometimes patients, to quickly guide their clinical decisions. Using more than one database is generally recommended but may not always be necessary for some fields. This study aimed to determine the added value of searching additional databases beyond MEDLINE when conducting a literature search of hyperbaric oxygen treatment (HBOT) randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: This study consisted of two phases: a scoping review of all RCTs in the field of HBOT, followed by a a statistical analysis of sensitivity, precision, 'number needed to read' (NNR) and 'number unique' included by individual biomedical databases. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL), and Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched without date or language restrictions up to December 31, 2022. Screening and data extraction were conducted in duplicate by pairs of independent reviewers. RCTs were included if they involved human subjects and HBOT was offered either on its own or in combination with other treatments. Results: Out of 5,840 different citations identified, 367 were included for analysis. CENTRAL was the most sensitive (87.2%) and had the most unique references (7.1%). MEDLINE had the highest precision (23.8%) and optimal NNR (four). Among included references, 14.2% were unique to a single database. Conclusions: Systematic reviews of RCTs in HBOT should always utilise multiple databases, which at minimum include MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and CINAHL.

Optimizing Teamwork in the Operating Room: A Scoping Review of Actionable Teamwork Strategies.

Suboptimal teamwork in the operating room (OR) is a contributing factor in a significant proportion of preventable complications for surgical patients. Specifying behaviour is fundamental to closing evidence-practice gaps in healthcare. Current teamwork interventions, however, have yet to be synthesized in this way. This scoping review aimed to identify actionable strategies for use during surgery by mapping the existing literature according to the Action, Actor, Context, Target, Time (AACTT) framework. The databases MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online), Embase, Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), Cochrane, Scopus, and PsycINFO were searched from inception to April 5, 2022. Screening and data extraction were conducted in duplicate by pairs of independent reviewers. The search identified 9,289 references after the removal of duplicates. Across 249 studies deemed eligible for inclusion, eight types of teamwork interventions could be mapped according to the AACTT framework: bundle/checklists, protocols, audit and feedback, clinical practice guidelines, environmental change, cognitive aid, education, and other), yet many were ambiguous regarding the actors and actions involved. The 101 included protocol interventions appeared to be among the most actionable for the OR based on the clear specification of ACCTT elements, and their effectiveness should be evaluated and compared in future work.