Crisis resource management: evaluating outcomes of a multidisciplinary team.

Department of Nursing, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA 17033, USA.
Simulation in healthcare: journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare (Impact Factor: 1.59). 02/2007; 2(2):96-101. DOI: 10.1097/SIH.0b013e31805d8b0d
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Crisis resource management (CRM) is a team-training program that teaches nontechnical skills such as: collaboration, communication, task management, teamwork, and leadership. The purpose of this study was to evaluate improvement in the nontechnical skills of a multidisciplinary team of pediatric residents, anesthesiology residents and pediatric nurses following participation in the CRM educational program. Self-efficacy theory guided the teaching method used in the CRM program. The Collaboration and Satisfaction about Care Decisions instrument and the Anesthetists' Nontechnical Skills System served as outcome measures. Seven multidisciplinary groups were studied with a total of 40 subjects. A significant increase was found in posttest scores for perceived collaboration and satisfaction with care and in numerical ratings of observed team skills following the CRM program. The results suggest multidisciplinary team participation in the CRM program increased perceived team collaboration, satisfaction with care, and observed teamwork skills.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Nurse administrators are challenged to determine the best use of limited resources to support organizational patient safety improvement efforts. This article reviews the literature on techniques to reduce errors and improve patient safety in hospitals with a focus on team training initiatives. Implications for nurse administrators are discussed.
    The Journal of nursing administration 09/2012; 42(9):426-30. DOI:10.1097/NNA.0b013e3182664df5 · 1.37 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose To identify and describe the design, implementation, and evidence of effectiveness of leadership training interventions for health care action (HCA) teams, defined as interdisciplinary teams whose members coordinate their actions in time-pressured, unstable situations. Method The authors conducted a systematic search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, ERIC, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science databases, key journals, and review articles published through March 2012. They identified peer-reviewed English-language articles describing leadership training interventions targeting HCA teams, at all levels of training and across all health care professions. Reviewers, working in duplicate, abstracted training characteristics and outcome data. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI). Results Of the 52 included studies, 5 (10%) focused primarily on leadership training, whereas the remainder included leadership training as part of a larger teamwork curriculum. Few studies reported using a team leadership model (2; 4%) or a theoretical framework (9; 17%) to support their curricular design. Only 15 studies (29%) specified the leadership behaviors targeted by training. Forty-five studies (87%) reported an assessment component; of those, 31 (69%) provided objective outcome measures including assessment of knowledge or skills (21; 47%), behavior change (8; 18%), and patient-or system-level metrics (8; 18%). The mean MERSQI score was 11.4 (SD 2.9). Conclusions Leadership training targeting HCA teams has become more prevalent. Determining best practices in leadership training is confounded by variability in leadership definitions, absence of supporting frameworks, and a paucity of robust assessments.
    Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 07/2014; 89(9). DOI:10.1097/ACM.0000000000000413 · 3.47 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Valid teamwork assessment is imperative to determine physician competency and optimize patient outcomes. We systematically reviewed published instruments assessing teamwork in undergraduate, graduate, and continuing medical education in general internal medicine and all medical subspecialties. We searched MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-process, CINAHL and PsycINFO from January 1979 through October 2012, references of included articles, and abstracts from four professional meetings. Two content experts were queried for additional studies. Included studies described quantitative tools measuring teamwork among medical students, residents, fellows, and practicing physicians on single or multi-professional (interprofessional) teams. Instrument validity and study quality were extracted using established frameworks with existing validity evidence. Two authors independently abstracted 30 % of articles and agreement was calculated. Of 12,922 citations, 178 articles describing 73 unique teamwork assessment tools met inclusion criteria. Interrater agreement was intraclass correlation coefficient 0.73 (95 % CI 0.63-0.81). Studies involved practicing physicians (142, 80 %), residents/fellows (70, 39 %), and medical students (11, 6 %). The majority (152, 85 %) assessed interprofessional teams. Studies were conducted in inpatient (77, 43 %), outpatient (42, 24 %), simulation (37, 21 %), and classroom (13, 7 %) settings. Validity evidence for the 73 tools included content (54, 74 %), internal structure (51, 70 %), relationships to other variables (25, 34 %), and response process (12, 16 %). Attitudes and opinions were the most frequently assessed outcomes. Relationships between teamwork scores and patient outcomes were directly examined for 13 (18 %) of tools. Scores from the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire and Team Climate Inventory have substantial validity evidence and have been associated with improved patient outcomes. Review is limited to quantitative assessments of teamwork in internal medicine. There is strong validity evidence for several published tools assessing teamwork in internal medicine. However, few teamwork assessments have been directly linked to patient outcomes.
    Journal of General Internal Medicine 12/2013; 29(6). DOI:10.1007/s11606-013-2686-8 · 3.42 Impact Factor