I like what you are saying, but only if i feel safe: Psychological safety moderates the relationship between voice and perceived contribution to healthcare team effectiveness.

Introduction: Are nurses who voice work-related concerns viewed as positive contributors to a team? We propose that the extent to which healthcare professionals consider voice by nurses as helpful for the team depends on how psychologically safe they feel. Specifically, we hypothesized that psychological safety moderates the relationship between voice of a lower ranking team member (i.e., a nurse) and perceived contribution by others, such that voice is more likely to be seen as valuable for team decision-making when psychological safety is high but not when it is low. Methods: We tested our hypotheses with a randomized between-subjects experiment using a sample of emergency medicine nurses and physicians. Participants evaluated a nurse who either did or did not speak up with alternative suggestions during emergency patient treatment. Results: Results confirmed our hypotheses: At higher levels of psychological safety the nurse's voice was considered as more helpful than withholding of voice for team decision-making. This was not the case at lower levels of psychological safety. This effect was stable when including important control variables (i.e., hierarchical position, work experience, gender). Discussion: Our results shed light on how evaluations of voice are contingent on perceptions of a psychologically safe team context.

Tough times at the top: Occupational status predicts changes in job satisfaction in times of crisis.

How do individuals with a higher versus lower occupational status experience major, unexpected changes to their work life? The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted most areas of work life and, thus, provides a unique opportunity to examine changes in work attitudes in response to a worldwide crisis. We predict that individuals with higher, but not with lower occupational status showed a decline in job satisfaction during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany (1st lockdown; March to May 2020), with subsequent recovery to initial job satisfaction levels. Based on role theory and social-psychological theories of hierarchical differentiation, we argue that, due to the profound work-related changes, individuals with higher (vs. lower) occupational status are more negatively affected in realizing their work goals and, thus, experience decreasing levels of job satisfaction. To test these predictions, we investigated trajectories of job satisfaction between December 2019 and August 2020 (7 measurement waves; N = 1583). Results of piece-wise growth curve models showed that individuals with higher occupational status showed a steeper decline in job satisfaction (followed by recovery) over time, whereas individuals with medium and lower occupational status did not experience a significant change in job satisfaction. In addition, we show that the decline in job satisfaction is moderated by perceived constraints at work associated with the pandemic among individuals with higher occupational status. Overall, these findings contribute to our understanding of the link between occupational status and job satisfaction in times of crisis.

It's not you, it's the design - common problems with patient monitoring reported by anesthesiologists: a mixed qualitative and quantitative study.

BACKGROUND: Patient monitoring is critical for perioperative patient safety as anesthesiologists routinely make crucial therapeutic decisions from the information displayed on patient monitors. Previous research has shown that today's patient monitoring has room for improvement in areas such as information overload and alarm fatigue. The rationale of this study was to learn more about the problems anesthesiologists face in patient monitoring and to derive improvement suggestions for next-generation patient monitors. METHODS: We conducted a two-center qualitative/quantitative study. Initially, we interviewed 120 anesthesiologists (physicians and nurses) about the topic: common problems with patient monitoring in your daily work. Through deductive and inductive coding, we identified major topics and sub themes from the interviews. In a second step, a field survey, a separate group of 25 anesthesiologists rated their agree- or disagreement with central statements created for all identified major topics. RESULTS: We identified the following six main topics: 1. "Alarms," 2. "Artifacts," 3. "Software," 4. "Hardware," 5. "Human Factors," 6. "System Factors," and 17 sub themes. The central statements rated for the major topics were: 1. "problems with alarm settings complicate patient monitoring." (56% agreed) 2. "artifacts complicate the assessment of the situation." (64% agreed) 3. "information overload makes it difficult to get an overview quickly." (56% agreed) 4. "problems with cables complicate working with patient monitors." (92% agreed) 5. "factors related to human performance lead to critical information not being perceived." (88% agreed) 6. "Switching between monitors from different manufacturers is difficult." (88% agreed). The ratings of all statements differed significantly from neutral (all p < 0.03). CONCLUSION: This study provides an overview of the problems anesthesiologists face in patient monitoring. Some of the issues, to our knowledge, were not previously identified as common problems in patient monitoring, e.g., hardware problems (e.g., cable entanglement and worn connectors), human factor aspects (e.g., fatigue and distractions), and systemic factor aspects (e.g., insufficient standardization between manufacturers). An ideal monitor should transfer the relevant patient monitoring information as efficiently as possible, prevent false positive alarms, and use technologies designed to improve the problems in patient monitoring.

User perceptions of avatar-based patient monitoring: a mixed qualitative and quantitative study.

BACKGROUND: A new patient monitoring technology called Visual Patient, which transforms numerical and waveform data into a virtual model (an avatar) of the monitored patient, has been shown to improve the perception of vital signs compared to conventional patient monitoring. In order to gain a deeper understanding of the opinions of potential future users regarding the new technology, we have analyzed the answers of two large groups of anesthetists using two different study methods. METHODS: First, we carried out a qualitative analysis guided by the "consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research" checklist. For this analysis, we interviewed 128 anesthesiologists, asking: "Where do you see advantages in Visual Patient monitoring?" and afterward identified major and minor themes in their answers. In a second study, an online survey with 38 anesthesiologists at two different institutions, we added a quantitative part in which anesthesiologists rated statements based on the themes identified in the prior analysis on an ordinal rating scale. RESULTS: We identified four high-level themes: "quick situation recognition," "intuitiveness," "unique design characteristics," and "potential future uses," and eight subthemes. The quantitative questions raised for each major theme were: 1. "The Visual Patient technology enabled me to get a quick overview of the situation." (63% of the participants agreed or very much agreed to this statement). 2. "I found the Visual Patient technology to be intuitive and easy to learn." (82% agreed or very much agreed to this statement). 3. "The visual design features of the Visual Patient technology (e.g., the avatar representation) are not helpful for patient monitoring." (11% agreed to this statement). 4. "I think the Visual Patient technology might be helpful for non-monitor experts (e.g., surgeons) in the healthcare system." (53% of the participants agreed or strongly agreed). CONCLUSION: This mixed method study provides evidence that the included anesthesiologists considered the new avatar-based technology to be intuitive and easy to learn and that the technology enabled them to get an overview of the situation quickly. Only a few users considered the avatar presentation to be unhelpful for patient monitoring and about half think it might be useful for non-experts.

The interplay of subjective social status and essentialist beliefs about cognitive aging on cortisol reactivity to challenge in older adults.

Older adults are more likely than younger adults to experience stress when confronted with cognitive challenges. However, little is known about individual differences that might explain why some older adults exhibit stronger stress responses than others. We examined the interplay of two social-cognitive factors to explain older adults' cortisol reactivity: (1) subjective social status, and (2) essentialist beliefs about cognitive aging. We hypothesized that, depending on whether older adults believe that aging-related cognitive decline is inevitable versus modifiable, low subjective social status should lead to stronger or weaker cortisol reactivity. Using longitudinal data, we assessed the impact of cognitive challenges on stress reactivity in a sample of older adults (N = 389; 61-86 years). As predicted, regression analyses confirmed that 44 min after cognitively challenging tasks, older adults exhibited a significantly different cortisol reactivity depending on their subjective social status and their essentialist beliefs about cognitive aging. Specifically, older adults with low subjective social status and high essentialist beliefs showed a significantly elevated cortisol reactivity. We discuss the role of essentialist beliefs about cognitive aging to predict when and why high versus low subjective social status leads to stress responses in older adults.

How to Conduct Multimethod Field Studies in the Operating Room: The iPad Combined With a Survey App as a Valid and Reliable Data Collection Tool.

BACKGROUND: Tablet computers such as the Apple iPad are progressively replacing traditional paper-and-pencil-based data collection. We combined the iPad with the ready-to-use survey software, iSurvey (from Harvestyourdata), to create a straightforward tool for data collection during the Anesthesia Pre-Induction Checklist (APIC) study, a hospital-wide multimethod intervention study involving observation of team performance and team member surveys in the operating room (OR). OBJECTIVE: We aimed to provide an analysis of the factors that led to the use of the iPad- and iSurvey-based tool for data collection, illustrate our experiences with the use of this data collection tool, and report the results of an expert survey about user experience with this tool. METHODS: We used an iPad- and iSurvey-based tool to observe anesthesia inductions conducted by 205 teams (N=557 team members) in the OR. In Phase 1, expert raters used the iPad- and iSurvey-based tool to rate team performance during anesthesia inductions, and anesthesia team members were asked to indicate their perceptions after the inductions. In Phase 2, we surveyed the expert raters about their perceptions regarding the use of the iPad- and iSurvey-based tool to observe, rate, and survey teams in the ORs. RESULTS: The results of Phase 1 showed that training data collectors on the iPad- and iSurvey-based data collection tool was effortless and there were no serious problems during data collection, upload, download, and export. Interrater agreement of the combined data collection tool was found to be very high for the team observations (median Fleiss' kappa=0.88, 95% CI 0.78-1.00). The results of the follow-up expert rater survey (Phase 2) showed that the raters did not prefer a paper-and-pencil-based data collection method they had used during other earlier studies over the iPad- and iSurvey-based tool (median response 1, IQR 1-1; 1=do not agree, 2=somewhat disagree, 3=neutral, 4=somewhat agree, 5=fully agree). They found the iPad (median 5, IQR 4.5-5) and iSurvey (median 4, IQR 4-5) to be working flawlessly and easy to use (median 5, IQR 4-5). Expert ratings also showed that the anesthesia team members (ie, the surveyed doctors and nurses) who used the iPad- and iSurvey-based tool in the OR liked it (median 4, IQR 3-4.5). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of the iPad and iSurvey provides an efficient and unobtrusive method to observe teams in their natural environment in the OR and to survey team members immediately after completing their task (ie, anesthesia induction). The expert raters positively evaluated the use of the device and user perceptions. Considering these comprehensive results, we can recommend the use of the iPad- and iSurvey-based tool for studying team performance and team member perceptions in the OR.

Simulation With PARTS (Phase-Augmented Research and Training Scenarios): A Structure Facilitating Research and Assessment in Simulation.

INTRODUCTION: Assessment in simulation is gaining importance, as are scenario design methods increasing opportunity for assessment. We present our approach to improving measurement in complex scenarios using PARTS [Phase-Augmented Research and Training Scenarios], essentially separating cases into clearly delineated phases. METHODS: We created 7 PARTS with real-time rating instruments and tested these in 63 cases during 4 weeks of simulation. Reliability was tested by comparing real-time rating with postsimulation video-based rating using the same instrument. Validity was tested by comparing preintervention and postintervention total results, by examining the difference in improvement when focusing on the phase-specific results addressed by the intervention, and further explored by trying to demonstrate the discrete improvement expected from proficiency in the rare occurrence of leader inclusive behavior. RESULTS: Intraclass correlations [3,1] between real-time and postsimulation ratings were 0.951 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.794-0.990), 1.00 (95% CI, --to--), 0.948 (95% CI, 0.783-0.989), and 0.995 (95% CI, 0.977-0.999) for 3 phase-specific scores and total scenario score, respectively. Paired t tests of prelecture-postlecture performance showed an improvement of 14.26% (bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrap [BCa] 95% CI, 4.71-23.82; P = 0.009) for total performance but of 28.57% (BCa 95% CI, 13.84-43.30; P = 0.002) for performance in the respective phase. The correlation of total scenario performance with leader inclusiveness was not significant (rs = 0.228; BCa 95% CI. -0.082 to 0.520; P = 0.119) but significant for specific phase performance (rs = 0.392; BCa 95% CI, 0.118-0.632; P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: The PARTS allowed for improved reliability and validity of measurements in complex scenarios.

An Anesthesia Preinduction Checklist to Improve Information Exchange, Knowledge of Critical Information, Perception of Safety, and Possibly Perception of Teamwork in Anesthesia Teams.

BACKGROUND: An anesthesia preinduction checklist (APIC) to be performed before anesthesia induction was introduced and evaluated with respect to 5 team-level outcomes, each being a surrogate end point for patient safety: information exchange (the percentage of checklist items exchanged by a team, out of 12 total items); knowledge of critical information (the percentage of critical information items out of 5 total items such as allergies, reported as known by the members of a team); team members' perceptions of safety (the median scores given by the members of a team on a continuous rating scale); their perception of teamwork (the median scores given by the members of a team on a continuous rating scale); and clinical performance (the percentage of completed items out of 14 required tasks, e.g., suction device checked). METHODS: A prospective interventional study comparing anesthesia teams using the APIC with a control group not using the APIC was performed using a multimethod design. Trained observers rated information exchange and clinical performance during on-site observations of anesthesia inductions. After the observations, each team member indicated the critical information items they knew and their perceptions of safety and teamwork. RESULTS: One hundred five teams using the APIC were compared with 100 teams not doing so. The medians of the team-level outcome scores in the APIC group versus the control group were as follows: information exchange: 100% vs 33% (P < 0.001), knowledge of critical information: 100% vs 90% (P < 0.001), perception of safety: 91% vs 84% (P < 0.001), perception of teamwork: 90% vs 86% (P = 0.028), and clinical performance: 93% vs 93% (P = 0.60). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides empirical evidence that the use of a preinduction checklist significantly improves information exchange, knowledge of critical information, and perception of safety in anesthesia teams-all parameters contributing to patient safety. There was a trend indicating improved perception of teamwork.

TeamGAINS: a tool for structured debriefings for simulation-based team trainings.

BACKGROUND: Improving patient safety by training teams to successfully manage emergencies is a major concern in healthcare. Most current trainings use simulation of emergency situations to practice and reflect on relevant clinical and behavioural skills. We developed TeamGAINS, a hybrid, structured debriefing tool for simulation-based team trainings in healthcare that integrates three different debriefing approaches: guided team self-correction, advocacy-inquiry and systemic-constructivist techniques. METHODS: TeamGAINS was administered during simulation-based trainings for clinical and behavioural skills for anaesthesia staff. One of the four daily scenarios involved all trainees, whereas the remaining three scenarios each involved only two trainees with the others observing them. Training instructors were senior anaesthesiologists and psychologists. To determine debriefing quality, we used a post-test-only (debriefing quality) and a pre-post-test (psychological safety, leader inclusiveness), no-control-group design. After each debriefing all trainees completed a self-report debriefing quality scale which we developed based on the Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare and the Observational Structured Assessment of Debriefing. Perceived psychological safety and leader inclusiveness were measured before trainees' first (premeasure) and after their last debriefing (postmeasure) at which time trainees' reactions to the overall training were measured as well. RESULTS: Four senior anaesthetists, 29 residents and 28 nurses participated in a total of 40 debriefings resulting in 235 evaluations. Utility of debriefings was evaluated as highly positive. Pre-post comparisons revealed that psychological safety and leader inclusiveness significantly increased after the debriefings. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that TeamGAINS could provide a useful debriefing tool for training anaesthesia staff on all levels of work experience. By combining state-of-the-art debriefing methods and integrating systemic-constructivist techniques, TeamGAINS has the potential to allow for a surfacing, reflecting on and changing of the dynamics of team interactions. Further research is necessary to systematically compare the effects of TeamGAINS' components on the debriefing itself and on trainees' changes in attitudes and behaviours.