The complexity of team training: what we have learned from aviation and its applications to medicine.

Quality and Safety in Health Care (Impact Factor: 2.16). 11/2004; 13 Suppl 1:i72-9. DOI: 10.1136/qhc.13.suppl_1.i72
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Errors in health care that compromise patient safety are tied to latent failures in the structure and function of systems. Teams of people perform most care delivered today, yet training often remains focused on individual responsibilities. Training programmes for all healthcare workers need to increase the educational experience of working in interdisciplinary teams. The complexities of team training require a multifunctional (systems) approach, which crosses organisational divisions to allow communication, accountability, and creation and maintenance of interdisciplinary teams. This report identifies challenges for medical education in performing the research, identifying performance measurements, and modifying educational curricula for the advancement of interdisciplinary teams, based on the complexity of team training identified in commercial aviation.

1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The study demonstrates the use of the expanded TLX instrument (Helton, Funke & Knott, 2014) for cognitive and team-related workload self-assessment of 38 participants, solving the UNISDR – ONU stop disasters game simulation. Subjects in one group (GF; n=30) performed group decision-making without prior individual practice on the simulation. A subset of GF participants (n=6) subsequently reiterated the simulation alone, reassessing their cognitive workload. Another group (IF; n=8) individually performed the simulation and reiterated it in groups. Most GF participants, moving from group to singly conditions, reported decreasing physical and temporal demands, unchanged self-assessed performance, and increased mental demands, effort and frustration. IF participants incurred increasing mental, physical and temporal demands, as well as increased effort, with decreasing frustration and better performance, from singly to group conditions. Team workload results differed across groups; GF had higher levels of reported team dissatisfaction, equivalent assessments of team support and lower assessments of coordination and communication demands coupled with decreased time sharing as well as lower team effectiveness, compared to IF. Results bear implications on training of decision- making teams; singly training team members preceding group training supports team-decision making effectiveness and individual performance within teams going through first stages of a system learning curve.
    Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Europe Chapter 2014 Annual Conference; 10/2014
  • Source
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Enhancing competency and collaboration has become a salient topic of the professional debate on medical safety issues. The advantages of simulation-based training scenarios for team communication, routines and critical work procedures especially in operation theatres have been vigorously discussed. However, the literature on simulation-based training theorises the respective learning mainly as a form of practising technical and non-technical skills and, thus, provides an insufficient understanding for several risks connected to simulations such as confirming a false feeling of safety or over-routinising procedures. Such problems of simulation-based learning can only be prevented or converted into strengths by developing a profound understanding of the specific knowledge-in-practice and the ‘scientification of work’ which it implies. Against the background of a study on simulation-based trainings for perfusionists at the German Heart Institute (Berlin), this article elaborates an expanded understanding of ‘work process knowledge’ and connects theoretically to Bengt Molander who compares knowledge to a form of ‘attentiveness’ and ‘presence’. The study shows that this knowledge-in-practice grounds in different activities to co-construct and collectively frame the object and the task of work. The quality of these activities depends not only on skills in communication but also on the socio-material enactment of professional roles.
    Journal of Education and Work 01/2014; 27(3). DOI:10.1080/13639080.2012.742182


Available from