Search

Teamwork training constitutes one of the core approaches for moving healthcare systems toward increased levels of quality and safety, and simulation provides a powerful method of delivering this training, especially for face-paced and dynamic specialty areas such as Emergency Medicine. Team performance measurement and evaluation plays an integral role in ensuring that simulation-based training for teams (SBTT) is systematic and effective. However, this component of SBTT systems is overlooked frequently. This article addresses this gap by providing a review and practical introduction to the process of developing and implementing evaluation systems in SBTT. First, an overview of team performance evaluation is provided. Second, best practices for measuring team performance in simulation are reviewed. Third, some of the prominent measurement tools in the literature are summarized and discussed relative to the best practices. Subsequently, implications of the review are discussed for the practice of training teamwork in Emergency Medicine.

This article provides a qualitative review of the published literature dealing with the design, implementation, and evaluation of simulation-based team training (SBTT) in healthcare with the purpose of providing synthesis of the present state of the science to guide practice and future research. A systematic literature review was conducted and produced 27 articles meeting the inclusion criteria. These articles were coded using a low-inference content analysis coding scheme designed to extract important information about the training program. Results are summarized in 10 themes describing important considerations for what occurs before, during, and after a training event. Both across disciplines and within Emergency Medicine (EM), SBTT has been shown to be an effective method for increasing teamwork skills. However, the literature to date has underspecified some of the fundamental features of the training programs, impeding the dissemination of lessons learned. Implications of this study are discussed for team training in EM.

PurposeIdentifying nontechnical, teamwork competencies (knowledge, skills, and attitudes) underlying coordination within and across the network of teams-or multiteam system (MTS) involved in cancer care is foundational to optimizing high-quality cancer care.MethodsA multidisciplinary group of cancer care stakeholders refined an initial list of competency statements during three rounds of a web-based modified Delphi survey.ResultsPanelists reached consensus on a final list of four domains and 20 associated team-based competencies important for effective coordination in cancer care MTS.ConclusionThis study provides an initial foundation for testing, modifying, measuring and evaluating the impact of identified competencies on care coordination, outcomes, and costs, for people being screened, treated, or surviving cancer.

ObjectiveIn this article, we describe some of the cognitive and system-based sources of detection and interpretation errors in diagnostic radiology and discuss potential approaches to help reduce misdiagnoses.ConclusionEvery radiologist worries about missing a diagnosis or giving a false-positive reading. The retrospective error rate among radiologic examinations is approximately 30%, with real-time errors in daily radiology practice averaging 3-5%. Nearly 75% of all medical malpractice claims against radiologists are related to diagnostic errors. As medical reimbursement trends downward, radiologists attempt to compensate by undertaking additional responsibilities to increase productivity. The increased workload, rising quality expectations, cognitive biases, and poor system factors all contribute to diagnostic errors in radiology. Diagnostic errors are underrecognized and underappreciated in radiology practice. This is due to the inability to obtain reliable national estimates of the impact, the difficulty in evaluating effectiveness of potential interventions, and the poor response to systemwide solutions. Most of our clinical work is executed through type 1 processes to minimize cost, anxiety, and delay; however, type 1 processes are also vulnerable to errors. Instead of trying to completely eliminate cognitive shortcuts that serve us well most of the time, becoming aware of common biases and using metacognitive strategies to mitigate the effects have the potential to create sustainable improvement in diagnostic errors.

Missed, delayed, or wrong diagnoses can have a severe impact on patients, providers, and the entire health care system. One mechanism implicated in such diagnostic errors is the deterioration of cognitive diagnostic skills that are used rarely or not at all over a prolonged period of time. Existing evidence regarding maintenance of effective cognitive reasoning skills in the clinical education, organizational training, and human factors literatures suggest that continuing education plays a critical role in mitigating and managing diagnostic skill decay. Recent models also underscore the role of system level factors (eg, cognitive decision support tools, just-in-time training opportunities) in supporting clinical reasoning process. The purpose of this manuscript is to offer a multidisciplinary review of cognitive models of clinical decision making skills in order to provide a list of best practices for supporting continuous improvement and maintenance of cognitive diagnostic processes through continuing education. (Contains 2 tables.)

The provision of high-quality, efficient care results from the coordinated, cooperative efforts of multiple technically competent health care providers working in concert over time, spanning disciplinary and professional boundaries. Accordingly, the role of medical education must include the development of providers who are both expert clinicians and expert team members. However, the competencies underlying effective teamwork are only just beginning to be integrated into medical school curricula and residency programs. Therefore, continuing education (CE) is a vital mechanism for practitioners already in the field to develop the attitudes, behaviors (skills), and cognitive knowledge necessary for highly reliable and effective team performance. The present article provides an overview of more than 30 years of evidence regarding team performance and team training in order to guide, shape, and build CE activities that focus on developing team competencies. Recognizing that even the most comprehensive and well-designed team-oriented CE programs will fail unless they are supported by an organizational and professional culture that values collaborative behavior, ten evidence-based lessons for practice are offered in order to facilitate the use of the science of team-training in efforts to foster continuous quality improvement and enhance patient safety. (Contains 2 tables.)

Numerous teamwork competency frameworks are designed for co-located, procedure-driven teams delivering care in acute settings. Little is known about their applicability or evaluation among larger teams-of-teams, known as multiteam systems (MTS), involved in delivering care for complex chronic conditions like cancer. In this review we aimed to identify studies examining teamwork competencies or teamwork competency frameworks developed or tested in healthcare teams, identify the extent to which they have been applied or evaluated in cancer care, and understand their applicability to larger MTSs involved in coordinating cancer care. We identified 107 relevant original articles, consensus statements, and prior systematic reviews published from 2013–2019. Most original papers (n = 96) were intervention studies of inpatient acute care teams (52, 54%). Fifty-eight articles (60%) used existing frameworks to define competency domains. Four original articles and two consensus statements addressed teamwork competencies for cancer care. Few frameworks or interprofessional education (IPE) curricula specifically addressed teamwork among larger, distributed teams or examined competencies necessary to overcome care coordination challenges in cancer care MTSs. Research guiding the development of frameworks and IPE that consider challenges to effective coordination among larger MTSs and studies of their impact on patient and clinical outcomes is essential to optimal, high-quality care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]