Assessing teamwork performance in obstetrics:a systematic search and review of validated tools

\u3cp\u3eTeamwork performance is an essential component for the clinical efficiency of multi-professional teams in obstetric care. As patient safety is related to teamwork performance, it has become an important learning goal in simulation-based education. In order to improve teamwork performance, reliable assessment tools are required. These can be used to provide feedback during training courses, or to compare learning effects between different types of training courses. The aim of the current study is to (1) identify the available assessment tools to evaluate obstetric teamwork performance in a simulated environment, and (2) evaluate their psychometric properties in order to identify the most valuable tool(s) to use. We performed a systematic search in PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE to identify articles describing assessment tools for the evaluation of obstetric teamwork performance in a simulated environment. In order to evaluate the quality of the identified assessment tools the standards and grading rules have been applied as recommended by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Committee on Educational Outcomes. The included studies were also assessed according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (OCEBM) levels of evidence. This search resulted in the inclusion of five articles describing the following six tools: Clinical Teamwork Scale, Human Factors Rating Scale, Global Rating Scale, Assessment of Obstetric Team Performance, Global Assessment of Obstetric Team Performance, and the Teamwork Measurement Tool. Based on the ACGME guidelines we assigned a Class 3, level C of evidence, to all tools. Regarding the OCEBM levels of evidence, a level 3b was assigned to two studies and a level 4 to four studies. The Clinical Teamwork Scale demonstrated the most comprehensive validation, and the Teamwork Measurement Tool demonstrated promising results, however it is recommended to further investigate its reliability.\u3c/p\u3

Assessing teamwork performance in obstetrics: A systematic search and review of validated tools

Teamwork performance is an essential component for the clinical efficiency of multi-professional teams in obstetric care. As patient safety is related to teamwork performance, it has become an important learning goal in simulation-based education. In order to improve teamwork performance, reliable assessment tools are required. These can be used to provide feedback during training courses, or to compare learning effects between different types of training courses. The aim of the current study is to (1) identify the available assessment tools to evaluate obstetric teamwork performance in a simulated environment, and (2) evaluate their psychometric properties in order to identify the most valuable tool(s) to use. We performed a systematic search in PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE to identify articles describing assessment tools for the evaluation of obstetric teamwork performance in a simulated environment. In order to evaluate the quality of the identified assessment tools the standards and grading rules have been applied as recommended by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Committee on Educational Outcomes. The included studies were also assessed according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (OCEBM) levels of evidence. This search resulted in the inclusion of five articles describing the following six tools: Clinical Teamwork Scale, Human Factors Rating Scale, Global Rating Scale, Assessment of Obstetric Team Performance, Global Assessment of Obstetric Team Performance, and the Teamwork Measurement Tool. Based on the ACGME guidelines we assigned a Class 3, level C of evidence, to all tools. Regarding the OCEBM levels of evidence, a level 3b was assigned to two studies and a level 4 to four studies. The Clinical Teamwork Scale demonstrated the most comprehensive validation, and the Teamwork Measurement Tool demonstrated promising results, however it is recommended to further investigate its reliability

Weaning from mechanical ventilation in intensive care units across 50 countries (WEAN SAFE): a multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study

International audienceBackground: Current management practices and outcomes in weaning from invasive mechanical ventilation are poorly understood. We aimed to describe the epidemiology, management, timings, risk for failure, and outcomes of weaning in patients requiring at least 2 days of invasive mechanical ventilation. Methods: WEAN SAFE was an international, multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study done in 481 intensive care units in 50 countries. Eligible participants were older than 16 years, admitted to a participating intensive care unit, and receiving mechanical ventilation for 2 calendar days or longer. We defined weaning initiation as the first attempt to separate a patient from the ventilator, successful weaning as no reintubation or death within 7 days of extubation, and weaning eligibility criteria based on positive end-expiratory pressure, fractional concentration of oxygen in inspired air, and vasopressors. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients successfully weaned at 90 days. Key secondary outcomes included weaning duration, timing of weaning events, factors associated with weaning delay and weaning failure, and hospital outcomes. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03255109. Findings: Between Oct 4, 2017, and June 25, 2018, 10 232 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 5869 were enrolled. 4523 (77·1%) patients underwent at least one separation attempt and 3817 (65·0%) patients were successfully weaned from ventilation at day 90. 237 (4·0%) patients were transferred before any separation attempt, 153 (2·6%) were transferred after at least one separation attempt and not successfully weaned, and 1662 (28·3%) died while invasively ventilated. The median time from fulfilling weaning eligibility criteria to first separation attempt was 1 day (IQR 0–4), and 1013 (22·4%) patients had a delay in initiating first separation of 5 or more days. Of the 4523 (77·1%) patients with separation attempts, 2927 (64·7%) had a short wean (≤1 day), 457 (10·1%) had intermediate weaning (2–6 days), 433 (9·6%) required prolonged weaning (≥7 days), and 706 (15·6%) had weaning failure. Higher sedation scores were independently associated with delayed initiation of weaning. Delayed initiation of weaning and higher sedation scores were independently associated with weaning failure. 1742 (31·8%) of 5479 patients died in the intensive care unit and 2095 (38·3%) of 5465 patients died in hospital. Interpretation: In critically ill patients receiving at least 2 days of invasive mechanical ventilation, only 65% were weaned at 90 days. A better understanding of factors that delay the weaning process, such as delays in weaning initiation or excessive sedation levels, might improve weaning success rates. Funding: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, European Respiratory Society

Weaning from mechanical ventilation in intensive care units across 50 countries (WEAN SAFE): a multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study

Background Current management practices and outcomes in weaning from invasive mechanical ventilation are poorly understood. We aimed to describe the epidemiology, management, timings, risk for failure, and outcomes of weaning in patients requiring at least 2 days of invasive mechanical ventilation. Methods WEAN SAFE was an international, multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study done in 481 intensive care units in 50 countries. Eligible participants were older than 16 years, admitted to a participating intensive care unit, and receiving mechanical ventilation for 2 calendar days or longer. We defined weaning initiation as the first attempt to separate a patient from the ventilator, successful weaning as no reintubation or death within 7 days of extubation, and weaning eligibility criteria based on positive end-expiratory pressure, fractional concentration of oxygen in inspired air, and vasopressors. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients successfully weaned at 90 days. Key secondary outcomes included weaning duration, timing of weaning events, factors associated with weaning delay and weaning failure, and hospital outcomes. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03255109. Findings Between Oct 4, 2017, and June 25, 2018, 10 232 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 5869 were enrolled. 4523 (77·1%) patients underwent at least one separation attempt and 3817 (65·0%) patients were successfully weaned from ventilation at day 90. 237 (4·0%) patients were transferred before any separation attempt, 153 (2·6%) were transferred after at least one separation attempt and not successfully weaned, and 1662 (28·3%) died while invasively ventilated. The median time from fulfilling weaning eligibility criteria to first separation attempt was 1 day (IQR 0–4), and 1013 (22·4%) patients had a delay in initiating first separation of 5 or more days. Of the 4523 (77·1%) patients with separation attempts, 2927 (64·7%) had a short wean (≤1 day), 457 (10·1%) had intermediate weaning (2–6 days), 433 (9·6%) required prolonged weaning (≥7 days), and 706 (15·6%) had weaning failure. Higher sedation scores were independently associated with delayed initiation of weaning. Delayed initiation of weaning and higher sedation scores were independently associated with weaning failure. 1742 (31·8%) of 5479 patients died in the intensive care unit and 2095 (38·3%) of 5465 patients died in hospital. Interpretation In critically ill patients receiving at least 2 days of invasive mechanical ventilation, only 65% were weaned at 90 days. A better understanding of factors that delay the weaning process, such as delays in weaning initiation or excessive sedation levels, might improve weaning success rates

Weaning from mechanical ventilation in intensive care units across 50 countries (WEAN SAFE): a multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study

Background: Current management practices and outcomes in weaning from invasive mechanical ventilation are poorly understood. We aimed to describe the epidemiology, management, timings, risk for failure, and outcomes of weaning in patients requiring at least 2 days of invasive mechanical ventilation. Methods: WEAN SAFE was an international, multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study done in 481 intensive care units in 50 countries. Eligible participants were older than 16 years, admitted to a participating intensive care unit, and receiving mechanical ventilation for 2 calendar days or longer. We defined weaning initiation as the first attempt to separate a patient from the ventilator, successful weaning as no reintubation or death within 7 days of extubation, and weaning eligibility criteria based on positive end-expiratory pressure, fractional concentration of oxygen in inspired air, and vasopressors. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients successfully weaned at 90 days. Key secondary outcomes included weaning duration, timing of weaning events, factors associated with weaning delay and weaning failure, and hospital outcomes. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03255109. Findings: Between Oct 4, 2017, and June 25, 2018, 10 232 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 5869 were enrolled. 4523 (77·1%) patients underwent at least one separation attempt and 3817 (65·0%) patients were successfully weaned from ventilation at day 90. 237 (4·0%) patients were transferred before any separation attempt, 153 (2·6%) were transferred after at least one separation attempt and not successfully weaned, and 1662 (28·3%) died while invasively ventilated. The median time from fulfilling weaning eligibility criteria to first separation attempt was 1 day (IQR 0-4), and 1013 (22·4%) patients had a delay in initiating first separation of 5 or more days. Of the 4523 (77·1%) patients with separation attempts, 2927 (64·7%) had a short wean (≤1 day), 457 (10·1%) had intermediate weaning (2-6 days), 433 (9·6%) required prolonged weaning (≥7 days), and 706 (15·6%) had weaning failure. Higher sedation scores were independently associated with delayed initiation of weaning. Delayed initiation of weaning and higher sedation scores were independently associated with weaning failure. 1742 (31·8%) of 5479 patients died in the intensive care unit and 2095 (38·3%) of 5465 patients died in hospital. Interpretation: In critically ill patients receiving at least 2 days of invasive mechanical ventilation, only 65% were weaned at 90 days. A better understanding of factors that delay the weaning process, such as delays in weaning initiation or excessive sedation levels, might improve weaning success rates. Funding: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, European Respiratory Society