How to enrich team research in healthcare by considering five theoretical perspectives.

The aim of this paper is to inspire team research to apply diverse and unconventional perspectives to study team dynamics and performance in healthcare settings. To illustrate that using multiple perspectives can yield valuable insights, we examine a segment of a team interaction during a heart-surgery, using five distinct interdisciplinary perspectives known from small group research: the psychodynamic, functional, conflict-power-status, temporal, and social identity perspectives. We briefly describe each theoretical perspective, discuss its application to study healthcare teams, and present possible research questions for the segment at hand using the respective perspective. We also highlight the benefits and challenges associated with employing these diverse approaches and explore how they can be integrated to analyze team processes in health care. Finally, we offer our own insights and opinions on the integration of these approaches, as well as the types of data required to conduct such analyses. We also point to further research avenues and highlight the benefits associated with employing these diverse approaches. Finally, we offer our own insights and opinions on the integration of these approaches, as well as the types of data required to conduct such analyses

How to enrich team research in healthcare by considering five theoretical perspectives

The aim of this paper is to inspire team research to apply diverse and unconventional perspectives to study team dynamics and performance in healthcare settings. To illustrate that using multiple perspectives can yield valuable insights, we examine a segment of a team interaction during a heart-surgery, using five distinct interdisciplinary perspectives known from small group research: the psychodynamic, functional, conflict-power-status, temporal, and social identity perspectives. We briefly describe each theoretical perspective, discuss its application to study healthcare teams, and present possible research questions for the segment at hand using the respective perspective. We also highlight the benefits and challenges associated with employing these diverse approaches and explore how they can be integrated to analyze team processes in health care. Finally, we offer our own insights and opinions on the integration of these approaches, as well as the types of data required to conduct such analyses. We also point to further research avenues and highlight the benefits associated with employing these diverse approaches. Finally, we offer our own insights and opinions on the integration of these approaches, as well as the types of data required to conduct such analyses

“A debriefer must be neutral” and other debriefing myths: a systemic inquiry-based qualitative study of taken-for-granted beliefs about clinical post-event debriefing

Background The goal of this study was to identify taken-for-granted beliefs and assumptions about use, costs, and facilitation of post-event debriefing. These myths prevent the ubiquitous uptake of post-event debriefing in clinical units, and therefore the identification of process, teamwork, and latent safety threats that lead to medical error. By naming these false barriers and assumptions, the authors believe that clinical event debriefing can be implemented more broadly. Methods We interviewed an international sample of 37 clinicians, educators, scholars, researchers, and healthcare administrators from hospitals, universities, and healthcare organizations in Western Europe and the USA, who had a broad range of debriefing experience. We adopted a systemic-constructivist approach that aimed at exploring in-depth assumptions about debriefing beyond obvious constraints such as time and logistics and focused on interpersonal relationships within organizations. Using circular questions, we intended to uncover new and tacit knowledge about barriers and facilitators of regular clinical debriefings. All interviews were transcribed and analyzed following a comprehensive process of inductive open coding. Results In total, 1508.62 min of interviews (25 h, 9 min, and 2 s) were analyzed, and 1591 answers were categorized. Many implicit debriefing theories reflected current scientific evidence, particularly with respect to debriefing value and topics, the complexity and difficulty of facilitation, the importance of structuring the debriefing and engaging in reflective practice to advance debriefing skills. We also identified four debriefing myths which may prevent post-event debriefing from being implemented in clinical units. Conclusion The debriefing myths include (1) debriefing only when disaster strikes, (2) debriefing is a luxury, (3) senior clinicians should determine debriefing content, and (4) debriefers must be neutral and nonjudgmental. These myths offer valuable insights into why current debriefing practices are ad hoc and not embedded into daily unit practices. They may help ignite a renewed momentum into the implementation of post-event debriefing in clinical settings.ISSN:2059-062

DE-CODE : a coding scheme for assessing debriefing interactions

Debriefings are crucial for learning during simulationbased training (SBT). Although the quality of debriefings is very important for SBT, few studies have examined actual debriefing conversations. Investigating debriefing conversations is important for identifying typical debriefer-learner interaction patterns, obtaining insights into associations between debriefers’ communication and learners’ reflection and comparing different debriefing approaches. We aim at contributing to the science of debriefings by developing DE-CODE, a valid and reliable coding scheme for assessing debriefers’ and learners’ communication in debriefings. It is applicable for both direct, on-site observations and video-based coding. Methods: The coding scheme was developed both deductively and inductively from literature on team learning and debriefing and observing debriefings during SBT, respectively. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using Cohen’s kappa. DE-CODE was tested for both live and video-based coding. Results: DE-CODE consists of 32 codes for debriefers’ communication and 15 codes for learners’ communication. For live coding, coders achieved good inter-rater reliabilities with the exception of four codes for debriefers’ communication and two codes for learners’ communication. For video-based coding, coders achieved substantial inter-rater reliabilities with the exception of five codes for debriefers’ communication and three codes for learners’ communication. Conclusion: DE-CODE is designed as micro-level measurement tool for coding debriefing conversations applicable to any debriefing of SBT in any field (except for the code medical input). It is reliable for direct, on-site observations as well as for video-based coding. DE-CODE is intended to allow for obtaining insights into what works and what does not work during debriefings and contribute to the science of debriefing

Exposure to incivility does not hinder speaking up: a randomised controlled high-fidelity simulation-based study

Background: Speaking up with concerns is critical for patient safety. We studied whether witnessing a civil (i.e. polite, respectful) response to speaking up would increase the occurrence of further speaking up by hospital staff members as compared with witnessing a pseudo-civil (i.e. vague and slightly dismissive) or rude response. Methods: In this RCT in a single, large academic teaching hospital, a single simulated basic life support scenario was designed to elicit standardised opportunities to speak up. Participants in teams of two or three were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions in which the degree of civility in reacting to speaking up was manipulated by an embedded simulated person. Speaking up behaviour was assessed by behaviour coding of the video recordings of the team interactions by applying 10 codes using The Observer XT 14.1. Data were analysed using multilevel modelling. Results: The sample included 125 interprofessional hospital staff members (82 [66%] women, 43 [34%] men). Participants were more likely to speak up when they felt psychologically safe (γ=0.47; standard error [se]=0.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.09-0.85; P=0.017). Participants were more likely to speak up in the rude condition than in the other conditions (γ=0.28; se=0.12; 95% CI, 0.05-0.52; P=0.019). Across conditions, participants spoke up most frequently by structuring inquiry (n=289, 31.52%), proactive (n=240, 26.17%), and reactive (n=148, 16.14%) instruction statements, and gestures (n=139, 15.16%). Conclusion: Our study challenges current assumptions about the interplay of civility and speaking up behaviour in healthcare. Keywords: assertiveness; civility; group processes; hospital; patient safety; rudeness; simulation; speaking up

Reasons for the persistence of adverse events in the era of safer surgery - a qualitative approach

OBJECTIVE We sought to evaluate potential reasons given by board-certified doctors for the persistence of adverse events despite efforts to improve patient safety in Switzerland. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA In recent years, substantial efforts have been made to improve patient safety by introducing surgical safety checklists to standardise surgeries and team procedures. Still, a high number of adverse events remain. METHODS Clinic directors in operative medicine in Switzerland were asked to answer two questions concerning the reasons for persistence of adverse events, and the advantages and disadvantages of introducing and implementing surgical safety checklists. Of 799 clinic directors, the arguments of 237 (29.7%) were content-analysed using Mayring's content analysis method, resulting in 12 different categories. RESULTS Potential reasons for the persistence of adverse events were mainly seen as being related to the "individual" (126/237, 53.2%), but directors of high-volume clinics identified factors related to the "group and interactions" significantly more often as a reason (60.2% vs 40.2%; p = 0.003). Surgical safety checklists were thought to have positive effects on the "organisational level" (47/237, 19.8%), the "team level" (37/237, 15.6%) and the "patient level" (40/237, 16.9%), with a "lack of willingness to implement checklists" as the main disadvantage (34/237, 14.3%). CONCLUSION This qualitative study revealed the individual as the main player in the persistence of adverse events. Working conditions should be optimised to minimise interface problems in the case of cross-covering of patients, to assure support for students, residents and interns, and to reduce strain. Checklists are helpful on an "organisational level" (e.g., financial benefits, quality assurance) and to clarify responsibilities

Associations of form and function of speaking up in anaesthesia: a prospective observational study

Background: Speaking up with concerns in the interest of patient safety has been identified as important for the quality and safety of patient care. The study objectives were to identify how anaesthesia care providers speak up, how their colleagues react to it, whether there is an association among speak up form and reaction, and how this reaction is associated with further speak up. Methods: Data were collected over 3 months at a single centre in Switzerland by observing 49 anaesthesia care providers while performing induction of general anaesthesia in 53 anaesthesia teams. Speaking up and reactions to speaking up were measured by event-based behaviour coding. Results: Instances of speaking up were classified as opinion (59.6%), oblique hint (37.2%), inquiry (30.7%), and observation (16.7%). Most speak up occurred as a combination of different forms. Reactions to speak up included short approval (36.5%), elaboration (35.9%), no verbal reaction (26.3%), or rejection (1.28%). Speaking up was implemented in 89.1% of cases. Inquiry was associated with an increased likelihood of recipients discussing the respective issue (odds ratio [OR]=13.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.9-31.5; P<0.0001) and with a decreased likelihood of implementing the speak up during the same induction (OR=0.27; 95% CI, 0.08-0.88; P=0.03). Reacting with elaboration to the first speak up was associated with decreased further speak up during the same induction (relative risk [RR]=0.42; 95% CI, 0.21-0.83; P=0.018). Conclusion: Our study provides insights into the form and function of speaking up in clinical environments and points to a perceived dilemma of speaking up via questions. Keywords: assertiveness; group processes; interaction; patient safety; responding; speaking up

The motivation to pursue surgical subspecialty training is largely gender-neutral: A national survey in Switzerland

Objectives: Over the last years, an increasing proportion of general surgeons have opted for a surgical sub-specialization, possibly due to economic pressures. With regard to the increase in women physicians, the aim of the present study was to examine qualitatively and quantitatively gender differences and reasons for obtaining sub-specialization in surgery. Methods: Survey among board-certified surgeons and surgical residents in Switzerland. Content analyses were done by using Mayring's content analysis. Results: A total of 455 arguments to pursue surgical subspecialty training were grouped in six different categories, namely: and ldquo;Interest and rdquo; (82/512, 16.0%), and ldquo;demand for quality and rdquo; (104/512, 20.3%), and ldquo;future prospects and rdquo; (142/512, 27.7%), and ldquo;obligation to specialize and rdquo; (48/512, 9.4%), and ldquo;financial reasons and rdquo; (10/512, 2.0%), and and ldquo;prestige and rdquo; (13/512, 2.5%). Men mentioned and ldquo;demand for quality and rdquo; (P = 0.01) significantly more often than women, but there were no other statistically significant differences between genres. Conclusions: Intrinsic arguments were more important, including a and ldquo;demand for quality and rdquo;, especially for men. However, the arguments in favor of surgical subspecialty training are largely gender-neutral. [Arch Clin Exp Surg 2015; 4(3.000): 121-125

Burnout and its determinants among anaesthesia care providers in Switzerland: a multicentre cross‐sectional study

The escalating epidemic of burnout in healthcare professionals affects provider well‐being, patient care and sustainability of healthcare systems. The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of burnout among anaesthesia care providers (consultants, trainees or nurse anaesthetists) in Switzerland and identify risk factors to develop strategies for prevention. This multicentre cross‐sectional study was conducted at 22 anaesthesia departments in the German‐speaking part of Switzerland, using an online questionnaire. Burnout assessment was performed using the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Additionally, the questionnaire included questions on workplace and personal risk factors. Of 1630 anaesthesia care providers contacted, 688 (42%) completed the survey. Among respondents who specified their work positions (n = 676), 52% (149/287) of nurses and 59% (229/389) of physicians were at high risk of burnout; and 9% (26/287) of nurses and 18% (70/389) of physicians met the criteria for burnout syndrome. Logistic regression analysis found significant associations between burnout and perceived lack of support at work among physicians (odds ratio (95%CI) 2.66 (1.40–5.24), p = 0.004); being a trainee in the 1st and 2nd year of training (2.91 (1.14–7.41), p = 0.024); being a trainee with > 5 years of experience (2.78 (1.08–6.98), p = 0.031); and male gender among nurses (4.13 (1.62–11.2), p = 0.004) and physicians (2.32 (1.22–4.47), p = 0.011). Work‐related errors due to high workload or fatigue were reported by 65% (444/688) and consideration of leaving the profession due to working conditions was expressed by 46% (319/688) of respondents. Anaesthetic care providers in German‐speaking Switzerland experience a considerable prevalence of burnout, influenced mainly by workplace factors