Implementing human factors in anaesthesia: guidance for clinicians, departments and hospitals: Guidelines from the Difficult Airway Society and the Association of Anaesthetists: Guidelines from the Difficult Airway Society and the Association of Anaesthetists.

Human factors is an evidence-based scientific discipline used in safety critical industries to improve safety and worker well-being. The implementation of human factors strategies in anaesthesia has the potential to reduce the reliance on exceptional personal and team performance to provide safe and high-quality patient care. To encourage the adoption of human factors science in anaesthesia, the Difficult Airway Society and the Association of Anaesthetists established a Working Party, including anaesthetists and operating theatre team members with human factors expertise and/or interest, plus a human factors scientist, an industrial psychologist and an experimental psychologist/implementation scientist. A three-stage Delphi process was used to formulate a set of 12 recommendations: these are described using a 'hierarchy of controls' model and classified into design, barriers, mitigations and education and training strategies. Although most anaesthetic knowledge of human factors concerns non-technical skills, such as teamwork and communication, human factors is a broad-based scientific discipline with many other additional aspects that are just as important. Indeed, the human factors strategies most likely to have the greatest impact are those related to the design of safe working environments, equipment and systems. While our recommendations are primarily provided for anaesthetists and the teams they work with, there are likely to be lessons for others working in healthcare beyond the speciality of anaesthesia.

Human factors in anaesthesia: a narrative review.

Healthcare relies on high levels of human performance, as described by the 'human as the hero' concept. However, human performance varies and is recognised to fall in high-pressure situations, meaning that it is not a reliable method of ensuring safety. Other safety-critical industries embed human factors principles into all aspects of their organisations to improve safety and reduce reliance on exceptional human performance; there is potential to do the same in anaesthesia. Human factors is a broad-based scientific discipline which aims to make it as easy as possible for workers to do things correctly. The human factors strategies most likely to be effective are those which 'design out' the chance of an error or adverse event occurring. When errors or adverse events do happen, barriers are in place to trap them and reduce the risk of progression to patient and/or worker harm. If errors or adverse events are not trapped by these barriers, mitigations are in place to minimise the consequences. Non-technical skills form an important part of human factors barriers and mitigation strategies and include: situation awareness; decision-making; task management; and team working. Human factors principles are not a substitute for proper investment and appropriate staffing levels. Although applying human factors science has the potential to save money in the long term, its proper implementation may require investment before reward can be reaped. This narrative review describes what is known about human factors in anaesthesia to date.

COVID-19 vaccination acceptability in the UK at the start of the vaccination programme: a nationally representative cross-sectional survey (CoVAccS - wave 2).

OBJECTIVES: Investigate factors associated with the intention to have the COVID-19 vaccination following initiation of the UK national vaccination programme. STUDY DESIGN: An online cross-sectional survey completed by 1500 adults (13th-15th January 2021). METHODS: Linear regression analyses were used to investigate associations between intention to be vaccinated for COVID-19 and sociodemographic factors, previous influenza vaccination, attitudes and beliefs about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccination and vaccination in general. Participants' main reasons for likely vaccination (non-)uptake were also solicited. RESULTS: 73.5% of participants (95% CI 71.2%, 75.7%) reported being likely to be vaccinated against COVID-19, 17.3% (95% CI 15.4%, 19.3%) were unsure, and 9.3% (95% CI 7.9%, 10.8%) reported being unlikely to be vaccinated. The full regression model explained 69.8% of the variance in intention. Intention was associated with: having been/intending to be vaccinated for influenza last winter/this winter; stronger beliefs about social acceptability of a COVID-19 vaccine; the perceived need for vaccination; adequacy of information about the vaccine; and weaker beliefs that the vaccine is unsafe. Beliefs that only those at serious risk of illness should be vaccinated and that the vaccines are just a means for manufacturers to make money were negatively associated with vaccination intention. CONCLUSIONS: Most participants reported being likely to get the COVID-19 vaccination. COVID-19 vaccination attitudes and beliefs are a crucial factor underpinning vaccine intention. Continued engagement with the public with a focus on the importance and safety of vaccination is recommended.

Development and Validation of a Short Version of the Metric for the Observation of Decision-Making in Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards: MODe-Lite.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based tools are necessary for scientifically improving the way MTBs work. Such tools are available but can be difficult to use. This study aimed to develop a robust observational assessment tool for use on cancer multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) by health care professionals in everyday practice. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional observational study was conducted in the United Kingdom from September 2015 to July 2016. Three tumor boards from three teaching hospitals were recruited, with 44 members overall. Six weekly meetings involving 146 consecutive cases were video-recorded and scored using the validated MODe tool. Data were subjected to reliability and validity analysis in the current study to develop a shorter version of the MODe. RESULTS: Phase 1, a reduction of the original items in the MODe, was achieved through two focus group meetings with expert assessors based on previous research. The 12 original items were reduced to 6 domains, receiving full agreement by the assessors. In phase 2, the six domains were subjected to item reliability, convergent validation, and internal consistency testing against the MODe-Lite global score, the MODe global score, and the items of the MODe. Significant positive correlations were evident across all domains (p < 0.01), indicating good reliability and validity. In phase 3, feasibility and high inter-assessor reliability were achieved by two clinical assessors. Six domains measuring clinical input, holistic input, clinical collaboration, pathology, radiology, and management plan were integrated into MODe-Lite. CONCLUSIONS: As an evidence-based tool for health care professionals in everyday practice, MODe-Lite gives cancer MTBs insight into the way they work and facilitates improvements in practice.

Impact of a quality improvement project to reduce the rate of obstetric anal sphincter injury: a multicentre study with a stepped-wedge design.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a care bundle (antenatal information to women, manual perineal protection and mediolateral episiotomy when indicated) on obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI) rates. DESIGN: Multicentre stepped-wedge cluster design. SETTING: Sixteen maternity units located in four regions across England, Scotland and Wales. POPULATION: Women with singleton live births between October 2016 and March 2018. METHODS: Stepwise region by region roll-out every 3 months starting January 2017. The four maternity units in a region started at the same time. Multi-level logistic regression was used to estimate the impact of the care bundle, adjusting for time trend and case-mix factors (age, ethnicity, body mass index, parity, birthweight and mode of birth). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Obstetric anal sphincter injury in singleton live vaginal births. RESULTS: A total of 55 060 singleton live vaginal births were included (79% spontaneous and 21% operative). Median maternal age was 30 years (interquartile range 26-34 years) and 46% of women were primiparous. The OASI rate decreased from 3.3% before to 3.0% after care bundle implementation (adjusted odds ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.65-0.98, P = 0.03). There was no evidence that the effect of the care bundle differed according to parity (P = 0.77) or mode of birth (P = 0.31). There were no significant changes in caesarean section (P = 0.19) or episiotomy rates (P = 0.16) during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of this care bundle reduced OASI rates without affecting caesarean section rates or episiotomy use. These findings demonstrate its potential for reducing perineal trauma during childbirth. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: OASI Care Bundle reduced severe perineal tear rates without affecting caesarean section rates or episiotomy use.

Systematic literature review of learning curves for colorectal polyp resection techniques in lower gastrointestinal endoscopy.

AIM: The performance of therapeutic procedures in lower gastrointestinal endoscopy (LGI) can be challenging and carries an increased risk of adverse events. There is increasing demand for the training of endoscopists in these procedures, but limited guidelines exist concerning procedural competency. The aim of this study was to assess the learning curves for LGI polypectomy, colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). METHOD: A systematic review of electronic databases between 1946 and September 2019 was performed. Citations were included if they reported learning curve data. Outcome measures that defined the success of procedural competency were also recorded. RESULTS: A total of 34 out of 598 studies met the inclusion criteria of which 28 were related to ESD, three to polypectomy and three to EMR. Outcome measures for polypectomy competency (en bloc resection, delayed bleeding and independent polypectomy rate) were achieved after completion of between 250 and 400 polypectomies and after 300 colonoscopies. EMR outcome measures, including complete resection and recurrence, were achieved variably between 50 and 300 procedures. Outcome measures for ESD included efficiency (resection rates and procedural speed) and safety (adverse events). En bloc resection rates of over 80% and R0 resection rates of over 70% were achieved at 20-40 cases and procedural speed increased after 30 ESD cases. Competency in safety metrics was variably achieved at 20-200 cases. CONCLUSION: There is a paucity of data on learning curves in LGI polypectomy, EMR and ESD. Despite limited evidence, we have identified relevant outcome measures and threshold numbers for the most common LGI polyp resection techniques for potential inclusion in training programmes/credentialing guidelines.

Accuracy of surgical complication rate estimation using ICD-10 codes.

BACKGROUND: The ICD-10 codes are used globally for comparison of diagnoses and complications, and are an important tool for the development of patient safety, healthcare policies and the health economy. The aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy of verified complication rates in surgical admissions identified by ICD-10 codes and to validate these estimates against complications identified using the established Global Trigger Tool (GTT) methodology. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study of a sample of surgical admissions in two Norwegian hospitals. Complications were identified and classified by two expert GTT teams who reviewed patients' medical records. Three trained reviewers verified ICD-10 codes indicating a complication present on admission or emerging in hospital. RESULTS: A total of 700 admissions were drawn randomly from 12 966 procedures. Some 519 possible complications were identified in 332 of 700 admissions (47·4 per cent) from ICD-10 codes. Verification of the ICD-10 codes against information from patients' medical records confirmed 298 as in-hospital complications in 141 of 700 admissions (20·1 per cent). Using GTT methodology, 331 complications were found in 212 of 700 admissions (30·3 per cent). Agreement between the two methods reached 83·3 per cent after verification of ICD-10 codes. The odds ratio for identifying complications using the GTT increased from 5·85 (95 per cent c.i. 4·06 to 8·44) to 25·38 (15·41 to 41·79) when ICD-10 complication codes were verified against patients' medical records. CONCLUSION: Verified ICD-10 codes strengthen the accuracy of complication rates. Use of non-verified complication codes from administrative systems significantly overestimates in-hospital surgical complication rates.

Implementation and evaluation of nationwide scale-up of the Surgical Safety Checklist.

BACKGROUND: The WHO Surgical Safety Checklist improves surgical outcomes, but evidence and theoretical frameworks for successful implementation in low-income countries remain lacking. Based on previous research in Madagascar, a nationwide checklist implementation in Benin was designed and evaluated longitudinally. METHODS: This study had a longitudinal embedded mixed-methods design. The well validated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to structure the approach and evaluate the implementation. Thirty-six hospitals received 3-day multidisciplinary training and 4-month follow-up. Seventeen hospitals were sampled purposively for evaluation at 12-18 months. The primary outcome was sustainability of checklist use at 12-18 months measured by questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were CFIR-derived implementation outcomes, measured using the WHO Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scale (WHOBARS), safety questionnaires and focus groups. RESULTS: At 12-18 months, 86·0 per cent of participants (86 of 100) reported checklist use compared with 31·1 per cent (169 of 543) before training and 88·8 per cent (158 of 178) at 4 months. There was high-fidelity use (median WHOBARS score 5·0 of 7; use of basic safety processes ranged from 85·0 to 99·0 per cent), and high penetration shown by a significant improvement in hospital safety culture (adapted Human Factors Attitude Questionnaire scores of 76·7, 81·1 and 82·2 per cent before, and at 4 and 12-18 months after training respectively; P < 0·001). Acceptability, adoption, appropriateness and feasibility scored 9·6-9·8 of 10. This approach incorporated 31 of 36 CFIR implementation constructs successfully. CONCLUSION: This study shows successfully sustained nationwide checklist implementation using a validated implementation framework.

Analysing Breast Cancer Multidisciplinary Patient Management: A Prospective Observational Evaluation of Team Clinical Decision-Making.

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary team (MDT)-driven cancer care is a mandatory UK national policy, widely used globally. However, few studies have examined how MDT members make decisions as a team. We report a single-centre prospective study on team working within breast cancer MDT. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study of 10 breast MDT meetings (MDM). Trained clinical observer scored quality of presented information and disciplinary contribution to case reviews in real time, using a validated tool, namely Metric for the Observation of Decision-Making. Data were analysed to evaluate quality of team working. RESULTS: Ten MDMs were observed (N = 346 patients). An average of 42 patients were discussed per MDM (range: 29-51) with an average 3 min 20 s (range: 31 s-9 min) dedicated to each patient. Management decision was made in 99% of cases. In terms of contribution to case reviews, breast care nurses scored significantly (p < 0.05) lower (M = 1.79, SD = 0.12) compared to other team members (e.g. surgeons, M = 4.65; oncologists, M = 3.07; pathologists, M = 4.51; radiologists, M = 3.21). Information on patient psychosocial aspects (M = 1.69, SD = 0.68), comorbidities (M = 1.36, SD = 0.39) and views on treatment options (M = 1.47, SD = 0.34) was also significantly (p < 0.05) less well represented compared to radiology (M = 3.62, SD = 0.77), pathology (M = 4.42, SD = 0.49) and patient history (M = 3.91, SD = 0.48). CONCLUSION: MDT evaluation via direct observation in a meeting is feasible and reliable. We found consistent levels of quality of information coverage and contribution within the team, but certain aspects could be improved. Contribution to patient review resides predominantly with surgeons, while presented patient information is largely of biomedical nature. These findings can be fed to cancer MDTs to identify potential interventions for improvement.

Content Validation and Evaluation of an Endovascular Teamwork Assessment Tool.

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND: To modify, content validate, and evaluate a teamwork assessment tool for use in endovascular surgery. METHODS: A multistage, multimethod study was conducted. Stage 1 included expert review and modification of the existing Observational Teamwork Assessment for Surgery (OTAS) tool. Stage 2 included identification of additional exemplar behaviours contributing to effective teamwork and enhanced patient safety in endovascular surgery (using real-time observation, focus groups, and semistructured interviews of multidisciplinary teams). Stage 3 included content validation of exemplar behaviours using expert consensus according to established psychometric recommendations and evaluation of structure, content, feasibility, and usability of the Endovascular Observational Teamwork Assessment Tool (Endo-OTAS) by an expert multidisciplinary panel. Stage 4 included final team expert review of exemplars. RESULTS: OTAS core team behaviours were maintained (communication, coordination, cooperation, leadership team monitoring). Of the 114 OTAS behavioural exemplars, 19 were modified, four removed, and 39 additional endovascular-specific behaviours identified. Content validation of these 153 exemplar behaviours showed that 113/153 (73.9%) reached the predetermined Item-Content Validity Index rating for teamwork and/or patient safety. After expert team review, 140/153 (91.5%) exemplars were deemed to warrant inclusion in the tool. More than 90% of the expert panel agreed that Endo-OTAS is an appropriate teamwork assessment tool with observable behaviours. Some concerns were noted about the time required to conduct observations and provide performance feedback. CONCLUSION: Endo-OTAS is a novel teamwork assessment tool, with evidence for content validity and relevance to endovascular teams. Endo-OTAS enables systematic objective assessment of the quality of team performance during endovascular procedures.

Innovative tools for quality assessment: integrated quality criteria for review of multiple study designs (ICROMS).

OBJECTIVES: With the aim to facilitate a more comprehensive review process in public health including patient safety, we established a tool that we have termed ICROMS (Integrated quality Criteria for the Review Of Multiple Study designs), which unifies, integrates and refines current quality criteria for a large range of study designs including qualitative research. STUDY DESIGN: Review, pilot testing and expert consensus. METHODS: The tool is the result of an iterative four phase process over two years: 1) gathering of established criteria for assessing controlled, non-controlled and qualitative study designs; 2) pilot testing of a first version in two systematic reviews on behavioural change in infection prevention and control and in antibiotic prescribing; 3) further refinement and adding of additional study designs in the context of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control funded project 'Systematic review and evidence-based guidance on organisation of hospital infection control programmes' (SIGHT); 4) scrutiny by the pan-European expert panel of the SIGHT project, which had the objective of ensuring robustness of the systematic review. RESULTS: ICROMS includes established quality criteria for randomised studies, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series, and incorporates criteria for non-controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies and qualitative studies. The tool consists of two parts: 1) a list of quality criteria specific for each study design, as well as criteria applicable across all study designs by using a scoring system; 2) a 'decision matrix', which specifies the robustness of the study by identifying minimum requirements according to the study type and the relevance of the study to the review question. The decision matrix directly determines inclusion or exclusion of a study in the review. ICROMS was applied to a series of systematic reviews to test its feasibility and usefulness in the appraisal of multiple study designs. The tool was applicable across a wide range of study designs and outcome measures. CONCLUSION: ICROMS is a comprehensive yet feasible appraisal of a large range of study designs to be included in systematic reviews addressing behaviour change studies in patient safety and public health. The tool is sufficiently flexible to be applied to a variety of other domains in health-related research. Beyond its application to systematic reviews, we envisage that ICROMS can have a positive effect on researchers to be more rigorous in their study design and more diligent in their reporting.

A systematic review of patient preference elicitation methods in the treatment of colorectal cancer.

AIM: This systematic review aimed to assess the use of patient preference in colorectal cancer treatment. Eliciting patient preference is important for shared decision-making in colorectal cancer treatment. The introduction of newer treatments, which balance quality of life and overall survival, makes this an important future focus. METHOD: A systematic search strategy of MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews was undertaken to obtain relevant articles. Information regarding the type of patients included, preference instruments, study settings, outcomes and limitations was extracted. RESULTS: The eight articles comprising this review each described an empirical study using a validated instrument to define patient preference for an aspect of colorectal cancer treatment. The evidence suggests that patients are prepared to trade significant reductions in life expectancy to avoid certain complications of colorectal surgery, particularly stoma formation. In the adjuvant setting, patients are prepared to risk significant treatment side effects to gain small potential increases in life expectancy and chance of survival. Where neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment risks worsening function, however, patients generally forgo any potential increase in survival to improve bowel function and therefore quality of life. The only predictors of preference were tertiary education and previous cancer treatment. CONCLUSION: Most patients judge a moderate survival benefit to be sufficient to make adjuvant therapy for colorectal cancer worthwhile, but they are willing to trade a potential reduction in life expectancy and survival to avoid certain unwanted surgical sequelae.

Decision-making in Colorectal Cancer Tumor Board meetings: results of a prospective observational assessment.

BACKGROUND: The management of colorectal cancer increasingly involves multidisciplinary tumor boards. In cases where these occur, the quality can be variable. Despite this, there are no uniform measures to evaluate them. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of colorectal cancer tumor boards, via real-time prospective observation. METHODS: An observational tool, termed Colorectal Multidisciplinary Team Metric for Observation of Decision-Making (cMDT-MODe), was used to assess decision-making in 267 cases. The presentation of case history, radiological and pathological information, as well as contributions to decision making of the various team members were analyzed using descriptive statistics and t-tests. Interobserver agreement was assessed using intraclasscorrelation coefficients. RESULTS: Tumor board meetings lasted 76 min, were attended by approximately 16 specialists each, and reviewed an average of 24 cancer cases (3 min per case review). Regarding the quality of presented information to the team, case history information was rated the highest (mean 4.57), followed by radiological information (mean 4.22) and pathological information (mean 3.81). Regarding each team-member's contribution to discussion, surgeons were scored the highest (mean 4.81), followed by radiologists (mean 4.41) and meeting chairs (mean 4.13)--all team members except the board coordinators were scored highly. Overall scoring reliability was good (0.79). CONCLUSIONS: The cMDT-MODe instrument can be reliably used to prospectively assess decision making in the multidisciplinary management of colorectal patients. By systematically quantifying the quality of a colorectal cancer tumor board, we can identify areas for improving practice so as to optimize decision making for cancer care.

Understanding the determinants of antimicrobial prescribing within hospitals: the role of "prescribing etiquette".

BACKGROUND: There is limited knowledge of the key determinants of antimicrobial prescribing behavior (APB) in hospitals. An understanding of these determinants is required for the successful design, adoption, and implementation of quality improvement interventions in antimicrobial stewardship programs. METHODS: Qualitative semistructured interviews were conducted with doctors (n = 10), pharmacists (n = 10), and nurses and midwives (n = 19) in 4 hospitals in London. Interviews were conducted until thematic saturation was reached. Thematic analysis was applied to the data to identify the key determinants of antimicrobial prescribing behaviors. RESULTS: The APB of healthcare professionals is governed by a set of cultural rules. Antimicrobial prescribing is performed in an environment where the behavior of clinical leaders or seniors influences practice of junior doctors. Senior doctors consider themselves exempt from following policy and practice within a culture of perceived autonomous decision making that relies more on personal knowledge and experience than formal policy. Prescribers identify with the clinical groups in which they work and adjust their APB according to the prevailing practice within these groups. A culture of "noninterference" in the antimicrobial prescribing practice of peers prevents intervention into prescribing of colleagues. These sets of cultural rules demonstrate the existence of a "prescribing etiquette," which dominates the APB of healthcare professionals. Prescribing etiquette creates an environment in which professional hierarchy and clinical groups act as key determinants of APB. CONCLUSIONS: To influence the antimicrobial prescribing of individual healthcare professionals, interventions need to address prescribing etiquette and use clinical leadership within existing clinical groups to influence practice.

Multidisciplinary cancer team meeting structure and treatment decisions: a prospective correlational study.

BACKGROUND: Anecdotally, organizational factors appear to have an effect on the quality of decision-making in the multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting. We assess the effect of the number of team-members present, number and order of cases, and the timing of meetings on the process of decision-making in MDT meetings. METHODS: Between December 2009 and January 2010, data were prospectively collected on treatment decisions, meeting characteristics, quality of information, and teamworking for all cases discussed at a London-based MDT meeting. Variables measured using a validated assessment tool (MDT MODe) and correlational analyses were performed. RESULTS: Treatment decisions were reached in 254 of 298 (85%) cases. Cases toward the end of meetings were associated with lower rates of decision-making, information quality, and teamworking (r = -0.15 to -0.37). Increased number of cases per meeting and team members in attendance were associated with better information and teamworking (r = 0.29-0.43). More time per case was associated with improved teamworking (r = 0.16). A positive correlation was obtained between ability to reach decisions and improved information and teamworking (r = 0.36-0.54; all P ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Organizational factors related to the structure of the MDT meeting are associated with variation in the likelihood of reaching a treatment decision. Further research is required to establish causation and to modify such factors in order to improve the quality of cancer care.

Facilitators and barriers to teamworking and patient centeredness in multidisciplinary cancer teams: findings of a national study.

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are the standard means of making clinical decisions in surgical oncology. The aim of this study was to explore the views of MDT members regarding contribution to the MDT, representation of patients' views, and dealing with disagreements in MDT meetings-issues that affect clinical decision making, but have not previously been addressed. METHODS: Responses to open questions from a 2009 national survey of MDT members about effective MDT working in the United Kingdom were analyzed for content. Emergent themes were identified and tabulated, and verbatim quotes were extracted to validate and illustrate themes. RESULTS: Free-text responses from 1,636 MDT members were analyzed. Key themes were: (1) the importance of nontechnical skills, organizational support, and good relationships between team members for effective teamworking; (2) recording of disagreements (potentially sharing them with patients) and the importance of patient-centered information in relation to team decision making; (3) the central role of clinical nurse specialists as the patient's advocates, complementing the role of physicians in relation to patient centeredness. CONCLUSIONS: Developing team members' nontechnical skills and providing organizational support are necessary to help ensure that MDTs are delivering high-quality, patient-centered care. Recording dissent in decision making within the MDT is an important element, which should be defined further. The question of how best to represent the patient in MDT meetings also requires further exploration.

Impact of the World Health Organization's Surgical Safety Checklist on safety culture in the operating theatre: a controlled intervention study.

BACKGROUND: Positive changes in safety culture have been hypothesized to be one of the mechanisms behind the reduction in mortality and morbidity after the introduction of the World Health Organization's Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC). We aimed to study the checklist effects on safety culture perceptions in operating theatre personnel using a prospective controlled intervention design at a single Norwegian university hospital. METHODS: We conducted a study with pre- and post-intervention surveys using the intervention and control groups. The primary outcome was the effects of the Norwegian version of the SSC on safety culture perceptions. Safety culture was measured using the validated Norwegian version of the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture. Descriptive characteristics of operating theatre personnel and checklist compliance data were also recorded. A mixed linear regression model was used to assess changes in safety culture. RESULTS: The response rate was 61% (349/575) at baseline and 51% (292/569) post-intervention. Checklist compliance ranged from 77% to 85%. We found significant positive changes in the checklist intervention group for the culture factors 'frequency of events reported' and 'adequate staffing' with regression coefficients at -0.25 [95% confidence interval (CI), -0.47 to -0.07] and 0.21 (95% CI, 0.07-0.35), respectively. Overall, the intervention group reported significantly more positive culture scores-including at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the SSC had rather limited impact on the safety culture within this hospital.

Multidisciplinary team working across different tumour types: analysis of a national survey.

BACKGROUND: Using data from a national survey, this study aimed to address whether the current model for multidisciplinary team (MDT) working is appropriate for all tumour types. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Responses to the 2009 National Cancer Action Team national survey were analysed by tumour type. Differences indicate lack of consensus between MDT members in different tumour types. RESULTS: One thousand one hundred and forty-one respondents from breast, gynaecological, colorectal, upper gastrointestinal, urological, head and neck, haematological and lung MDTs were included. One hundred and sixteen of 136 statements demonstrated consensus between respondents in different tumour types. There were no differences regarding the infrastructure for meetings and team governance. Significant consensus was seen for team characteristics, and respondents disagreed regarding certain aspects of meeting organisations and logistics, and patient-centred decision making. Haematology MDT members were outliers in relation to the clinical decision-making process, and lung MDT members disagreed with other tumour types regarding treating patients with advanced disease. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis reveals strong consensus between MDT members from different tumour types, while also identifying areas that require a more tailored approach, such as the clinical decision-making process, and preparation for and the organisation of MDT meetings. Policymakers should remain sensitive to the needs of health care teams working in individual tumour types.

Development and evaluation of a checklist to support decision making in cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: MDT-QuIC.

BACKGROUND: The quality of decision-making in cancer multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings is variable, which can result in suboptimal clinical decision making. We developed MDT-QuIC, an evidence-based tool to support clinical decision making by MDTs, which was evaluated by key users. METHODS: Following a literature review, factors important for high-quality clinical decision making were listed and then converted into a preliminary checklist by clinical and safety experts. Attitudes of MDT members toward the tool were evaluated via an online survey, before adjustments were made giving rise to a final version: MDT-QuIC. RESULTS: The checklist was evaluated by 175 MDT members (surgeons = 38, oncologists = 40, specialist nurses = 62, and MDT coordinators = 35). Attitudes toward the checklist were generally positive (P < 0.001, 1-sample t test), although nurses were more positive than other groups regarding whether the checklist would improve their contribution in MDT meetings (P < 0.001, Mann-Whitney U test). Participants thought that the checklist could be used to prepare cases for MDT meetings, to structure and guide case discussions, or as a record of MDT discussion. Regarding who could use the checklist, 70% thought it should be used by the MDT chair, 54% by the MDT coordinator, and 38% thought all MDT members should use it. CONCLUSION: We have developed and validated an evidence-based tool to support the quality of MDT decision making. MDT members were positive about the checklist and felt it may help to structure discussion, improve inclusivity, and patient centeredness. Further research is needed to assess its effect on patient care and outcomes.

Developing and testing TEAM (Team Evaluation and Assessment Measure), a self-assessment tool to improve cancer multidisciplinary teamwork.

BACKGROUND: Cancer multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are well established worldwide and are an expensive resource yet no standardised tools exist to measure performance. We aimed to develop and test an MDT self-assessment tool underpinned by literature review and consensus from over 2000 UK MDT members about the "characteristics of an effective MDT." METHODS: Questionnaire items relating to all characteristics of MDTs (particularly Leadership and Chairing; Teamworking and Culture; Patient-centred care; Clinical decision-making process; and Organisation and administration during meetings) were developed by an expert panel. Acceptability, feasibility and psychometric properties were tested by online completion of the questionnaire by 23 MDTs from 4 UK NHS Trusts followed by interviews with 74 team members including members from all teams and nonresponders. 10 of the MDTs also completed questionnaires that directly translated each characteristic to an item (for the five domains above) to test content validity. RESULTS: A total of 47 items were created, each rated for agreement on a 5-point scale. A total of 329 (52 %) of 637 team members completed the questionnaire, including representation from medical, nursing and clerical MDT members. Responses correlated well with domain-specific questionnaires (r > 0.67, p = 0.01), most domain-scales had acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach alpha > 0.60), and good item discrimination (majority of items r < 0.20). Team members were positive about its value. CONCLUSIONS: Self-assessment of team performance using this tool may support MDT development.