Search

Team learning behavior is found to be one of the most effective team processes, as learning behavior at the team level (e.g., sharing, discussing, and reflecting on knowledge and actions) enables teams to adapt existing or develop new knowledge. Team leadership behavior is considered a critical accelerant for creating conditions that are essential to engage in team learning behavior, such as a safe environment. Yet despite the growing amount of research in team learning, this relationship remains unclear. Meta-analytic techniques were used to examine when team leadership behaviors support team learning behavior and how the task type moderates that relationship. Forty-three empirical studies reporting 92 effect sizes were synthesized. Analyses show that team leadership behavior explains 18% of the variance in team learning behavior. Furthermore, results indicate that person-focused leaders foster team learning for both adaptive and developmental tasks, whereas task-focused leaders influence team learning for adaptive tasks only., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: We developed a method to estimate the expected cost-effectiveness of a service intervention at the design stage and 'road-tested' the method on an intervention to improve patient handover of care between hospital and community., Method: The development of a nine-step evaluation framework: 1. Identification of multiple endpoints and arranging them into manageable groups; 2. Estimation of baseline overall and preventable risk; 3. Bayesian elicitation of expected effectiveness of the planned intervention; 4. Assigning utilities to groups of endpoints; 5. Costing the intervention; 6. Estimating health service costs associated with preventable adverse events; 7. Calculating health benefits; 8. Cost-effectiveness calculation; 9. Sensitivity and headroom analysis., Results: Literature review suggested that adverse events follow 19% of patient discharges, and that one-third are preventable by improved handover (ie, 6.3% of all discharges). The intervention to improve handover would reduce the incidence of adverse events by 21% (ie, from 6.3% to 4.7%) according to the elicitation exercise. Potentially preventable adverse events were classified by severity and duration. Utilities were assigned to each category of adverse event. The costs associated with each category of event were obtained from the literature. The unit cost of the intervention was €16.6, which would yield a Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gain per discharge of 0.010. The resulting cost saving was €14.3 per discharge. The intervention is cost-effective at approximately €214 per QALY under the base case, and remains cost-effective while the effectiveness is greater than 1.6%., Conclusions: We offer a usable framework to assist in ex ante health economic evaluations of health service interventions.

Background: The literature reveals a patchwork of knowledge about the effectiveness of handover and transfer of care-training interventions, their influence on handover practices and on patient outcomes. We identified a range of training interventions, defined their content, and then proposed practical measures for improving the training effectiveness of handover practices., Methods: We applied the Group Concept Mapping approach to identify objectively the shared understanding of a group of experts about patient handover training interventions. We collected 105 declarative statements about handover training interventions from an exhaustive literature review, and from structured expert interviews. The statements were then given to 21 healthcare and training design specialists to sort the statements on similarity in meaning, and rate them on their importance and feasibility., Results: We used multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis to depict the following seven clusters related to various handover training issues: standardisation, communication, coordination of activities, clinical microsystem care, transfer and impact, training methods and workplace learning., Conclusions: Ideas on handover training interventions, grouped in thematic clusters, and prioritised on importance and feasibility creates a repository of approaches. This allows healthcare institutions to design and test concrete solutions for improving formal training and workplace learning related to handovers, and addressing informal social learning at the organisational level, with the aim of increasing impact on handover practice and patient outcomes. Measures need to be taken to assure a continuum of handover training interventions from formal training through workplace learning through less formal social learning, and to embed this training in the design of the clinical microsystem.

Background: Experts have recommended training and standardisation as promising approaches to improve handovers and minimise the negative consequences of discontinuity of care. Yet the content and delivery of handover training have been only superficially examined and described in literature., Objective: The aim of this study was to formulate recommendations for effective handover training and to examine whether standardisation is a viable approach to training large numbers of healthcare professionals., Methods: A training needs analysis was conducted by means of a questionnaire, which was filled out by 96 healthcare professionals in primary and secondary care in the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and Poland. Preferences and recommendations regarding training delivery aspects and training topics that should be included in the handover training were measured., Results: The majority of the participants recommended a short conventional training session with practice assignments, to be completed in small, multidisciplinary groups. Formal examination, e-learning and self-study were not favoured. Recommended training topics were: communication skills, standardised procedures, knowing what to hand over, alertness to vulnerable patient groups and awareness of responsibility., Conclusions: The idea of completely standardised handover training is not in line with the identified differences in preferences and recommendations between different handover stakeholders. Mass customisation of training, in which generic training is adapted to local or individual needs, presents a promising solution to address general and specific needs, while containing the financial and time costs of designing and delivering handover training.

Background: Safe and effective patient handovers remain a global organisational and training challenge. Limited evidence supports available handover training programmes. Customisable training is a promising approach to improve the quality and sustainability of handover training and outcomes., Objective: We present a Handover Toolbox designed in the context of the European HANDOVER Project. The Toolbox aims to support physicians, nurses, individuals in health professions training, medical educators and handover experts by providing customised handover training tools for different clinical needs and contexts., Methods: The Handover Toolbox uses the Technology Enhanced Learning Design Process (TEL-DP), which encompasses user requirements analysis; writing personas; group concept mapping; analysis of suitable software; plus, minus, interesting rating; and usability testing. TEL-DP is aligned with participatory design approaches and ensures development occurs in close collaboration with, and engagement of, key stakeholders., Results: Application of TEL-DP confirmed that the ideal formats of handover training differs for practicing professionals versus individuals in health profession education programmes. Training experts from different countries differed in their views on the optimal content and delivery of training. Analysis of suitable software identified ready-to-use systems that provide required functionalities and can be further customised to users' needs. Interest rating and usability testing resulted in improved usability, navigation and uptake of the Handover Toolbox., Conclusions: The design of the Handover Toolbox was based on a carefully led stakeholder participatory design using the TEL-DP approach. The Toolbox supports a customisable learning approach that allows trainers to design training that addresses the specific information needs of the various target groups. We offer recommendations regarding the application of the Handover Toolbox to medical educators.