Communicating, coordinating, and cooperating when lives depend on it: Tips for teamwork
ABSTRACT In health care, others' lives depend on the team operating at a level beyond the sum of its individual parts. A framework (a heuristic) represents a three-pronged approach to teamwork in health care that entails communication, coordination, and cooperation. These fundamental requirements of teamwork represent the constant interaction that team members undertake to become an effective team. Guidelines, tips, and examples show how the framework can be applied to establishing and enabling teams to provide safe, reliable care.
The guidelines are as follows: (1) Support precise and accurate communication through a closed-loop communication protocol; (2) diagnose communication errors as you would any illness--Examine the team and look for symptoms, then treat the symptoms through team learning and self-correction; (3) recognize functional expertise by identifying and publicizing topical experts to evenly distribute work load and increase accuracy; (4) institute frequent practice opportunities to keep team skills in good shape because poorly honed skills will limit performance; (5) refine the team's shared mental models (SMMs) by pre-planning to build its implicit coordination skills, adaptability, and flexibility; (6) shape adaptive expertise by fostering a deep understanding of the task to increase team effectiveness; (7) build team orientation by taking steps to increase trust and cohesion to lower stress levels and increase satisfaction, commitment, and collective efficacy; and (8) prepare the team by providing learning opportunities for new competencies that will expose members to feedback and increase the team's overall efficacy.
Although not a comprehensive list, the guidelines and tips represent the most essential requirements for effective teamwork.
- SourceAvailable from: Paul Cornell
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "Nonetheless, time is often lost in searching multiple sources of information to stay informed. Despite these challenges, The Joint Commission (TJC) and most healthcare organizations agree that communication, collaboration, and coordination between disciplines is fundamental to providing safe and effective patient care (Salas et al., 2008). Formal structures are often multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary teams. "
ABSTRACT: Hospital communication is more than access to information. Among staff, it is about achieving situation awareness-an understanding of a patient's current condition and likely trajectory. In the multidisciplinary context of providing care, structure, consistency, and repeatability of communication will enable a shared understanding of the patient and plan, leading to improved patient satisfaction and outcomes. This was tested using the Situation-Background-Assessment-Recommendation (SBAR) protocol, a re-admissions risk assessment and daily interdisciplinary rounds (IDR) in the medical/surgical units of a hospital. The impact of these interventions on patient satisfaction, Foley catheter removal compliance, and patient re-admission rates was assessed. Over the 3 year period, Foley compliance improved from 78% to 94%, and re-admissions decreased from 14.5% to 2.1%, both significant. Patient satisfaction trended positively, but was not significant. These results support the value of SBAR and IDR, and are advocated to improve situation awareness and maintain focus on key patient data.Western Journal of Nursing Research 03/2014; 36(7). DOI:10.1177/0193945914527521 · 1.03 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "lustration of collaborative work : family - centred rounds in a paediatric hospital . ( Note that for present purposes , work done by teams of professionals without patient or family involvement would be categorised as ' professional work ' , even though elsewhere it is referred to as ' collaborative ' [ e . g . Reddy , Gorman , and Bardram 2011 ; Salas et al . 2008 ] . )"
ABSTRACT: Healthcare practitioners, patient safety leaders, educators and researchers increasingly recognise the value of human factors/ergonomics and make use of the discipline's person-centred models of sociotechnical systems. This paper first reviews one of the most widely used healthcare human factors systems models, the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model, and then introduces an extended model, 'SEIPS 2.0'. SEIPS 2.0 incorporates three novel concepts into the original model: configuration, engagement and adaptation. The concept of configuration highlights the dynamic, hierarchical and interactive properties of sociotechnical systems, making it possible to depict how health-related performance is shaped at 'a moment in time'. Engagement conveys that various individuals and teams can perform health-related activities separately and collaboratively. Engaged individuals often include patients, family caregivers and other non-professionals. Adaptation is introduced as a feedback mechanism that explains how dynamic systems evolve in planned and unplanned ways. Key implications and future directions for human factors research in healthcare are discussed.Ergonomics 10/2013; 56(11). DOI:10.1080/00140139.2013.838643 · 1.56 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "This finding may be of particular interest to many in the space research community since the matter of building, monitoring, and maintaining cohesion is a high priority issue, particularly in the age of diverse international and mixed-gender crews. In response to these results and NASA's emphasis on the importance of group cohesion, several conceptual prototypes for a team performance task (TPT) are under development in this laboratory to provide a rapid and objective behavioral assay of the fundamental elements of team cohesion and performance (cooperation, coordination, communication, situational awareness  ). The inherent complexity of cohesion makes it a challenging proposition to reduce the phenomenon to its constituent parts and operationally define them in purely behavioral terms, but the potential utility of a valid yet rapid and non-invasive assay makes it a worthwhile endeavor. "
ABSTRACT: Logistical constraints during long-duration space expeditions will limit the ability of Earth-based mission control personnel to manage their astronaut crews and will thus increase the prevalence of autonomous operations. Despite this inevitability, little research exists regarding crew performance and psychosocial adaptation under such autonomous conditions. To this end, a newly-initiated study on crew management systems was conducted to assess crew performance effectiveness under rigid schedule-based management of crew activities by Mission Control versus more flexible, autonomous management of activities by the crews themselves. Nine volunteers formed three long-term crews and were extensively trained in a simulated planetary geological exploration task over the course of several months. Each crew then embarked on two separate 3–4 h missions in a counterbalanced sequence: Scheduled, in which the crews were directed by Mission Control according to a strict topographic and temporal region-searching sequence, and Autonomous, in which the well-trained crews received equivalent baseline support from Mission Control but were free to explore the planetary surface as they saw fit. Under the autonomous missions, performance in all three crews improved (more high-valued geologic samples were retrieved), subjective self-reports of negative emotional states decreased, unstructured debriefing logs contained fewer references to negative emotions and greater use of socially-referent language, and salivary cortisol output across the missions was attenuated. The present study provides evidence that crew autonomy may improve performance and help sustain if not enhance psychosocial adaptation and biobehavioral health. These controlled experimental data contribute to an emerging empirical database on crew autonomy which the international astronautics community may build upon for future research and ultimately draw upon when designing and managing missions.Acta Astronautica 05/2011; 68(9-10-68):1581-1588. DOI:10.1016/j.actaastro.2009.09.034 · 1.12 Impact Factor