Advertisement

The Science and Training of Expert Operating Room Teams

  • Aimee GardnerEmail author
  • Louise Hull
Chapter
Part of the Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation book series (CHS)

Abstract

It is widely accepted that teamwork skills are critical to optimizing safety in the operating team. Failures in teamwork, rather than technical skills, are frequently identified as contributing factors in adverse events in the operating room. The fact that a team of experts do not simply merge to form an expert team, coupled with the fact the teamwork skills do not necessarily develop and perfect over time, has led to the development of many team training programs. The use of simulation to train teamwork skills has increased dramatically over the past decade. Drawing on the team science and surgical simulation literature, this chapter begins with a comprehensive overview of theoretical and conceptual underpinnings of effective teamwork (i.e., what distinguishes a high-performing team from a low-performing team). Next, methodologies to enhance team development and effectiveness are described and reviewed, followed by a summary of teamwork assessment tools that have been developed to measure the quality of OR teamwork. We discuss in detail a range of measurement issues including lack of standardization, psychometric quality, and rater trainer and provide “tips” on measuring and evaluating teamwork skills. A brief summary of the evidence regarding the effectiveness of team training in healthcare, surgery, and specifically multidisciplinary OR team training is presented. Finally, we highlight the challenges to widespread adoption, implementation, and sustainability of operating room simulation-based team training and identify a number of knowledge gaps that warrant future attention and exploration.

Keywords

Simulation Teamwork Teams Team training Operating room Surgical teams 

References

  1. 1.
    Patterson MD, Geis GL, Falcone RA, LeMaster T, Wears RL. In situ simulation: detection of safety threats and teamwork training in a high risk emergency department. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;22:468–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gardner AK, Ahmed RA, George RL, Frey JA. In situ simulation to assess workplace attitudes and effectiveness in a new facility. Simul Healthc. 2013;8:351–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bashford T, Reshamwalla S, McAuley J, Allen NH, McNatt Z, et al. Implementation of the WHO surgical safety checklist in an Ethiopian referral hospital. Patient Saf Surg. 2014;28:8–16.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Raemer DB, Kolbe M, Minehart RD, Rudolph JW, Pian-Smith MC. Improving anesthesiologists’ ability to speak up in the operating room: a randomized controlled experiment of a simulation-based intervention and a qualitative analysis of hurdles and enablers. Acad Med. 2016;4:530–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Salas E, Rosen MA, Burke CS, Goodwin GF. The wisdom of collectives in organizations: an update of the teamwork competencies. In: Salas E, Goodwin GF, Burke CS, editors. Team effectiveness in complex organizations. New York: Taylor & Francis; 2009.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Salas E, Sims DE, Burke CS. Is there a “big five” in teamwork? Small Group Res. 2005;36:555–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gardner AK, Scott DJ. Concepts for developing expert surgical teams using simulation. Surg Clin North Am. 2015;95:717–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Koschmann T, Dunnington G, Kim M. Team cognition and the accountabilities of the tool pass. In: Salas E, Fiore SM, Letsky MP, editors. Theories of team cognition: cross-disciplinary perspectives. New York: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Klimoski R, Mohammed S. Team mental model: construct or metaphor? J Manage. 1994;20:403–37.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smith-Jentsch KA, Mathieu JE, Kraiger K. Investigating linear and interactive effects of shared mental models on safety and efficiency in a field setting. J Appl Psyc. 2005;90:523–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wegner DM. Transactive memory: a contemporary analysis of the group mind. In: Mullen B, Goethals GR, editors. Theories of group behavior, New York: Springer-Verlag; 1986.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liang DW, Moreland R, Argote L. Group versus individual training and group performance mediating factor of transactive memory. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. 1995;85:331–48.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moreland RL, Argote L, Krishnan R. Socially shared cognition at work: transactive memory and group performance. In: Nye JL, Brower AM, editors. What’s social about social cognition? Research on socially shared cognition in small groups. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1996.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gardner AK, Ahmed RA. Transforming trauma teams through transactive memory: can simulation enhance performance? Simul Games. 2014;4:356–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Endsley MR. Expertise and situation awareness. In: Ericsson KA, Charness P, Feltovich P, Hoffman R, editors. The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2006.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hogan MP, Pace DE, Hapgood J, Boone DC. Use of human patient simulation and the situation awareness global assessment technique in practical trauma skills assessment. J Trauma. 2006;61:1047–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gardner AK, Kosemund M, Martinez J. Examining the feasibility and predictive validity of the SAGAT tool to assess situation awareness among medical trainees. Simul Healthc. 2017;12(1):17–21.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000181.
  18. 18.
    Webber SS. Leadership and trust facilitating cross-functional team success. J Manag Dev. 2002;21:201–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall; 1986.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Salas E, Dickinson TL, Converse SA, Tannenbaum SI. Toward an understanding of team performance and training. In: Swezy RW, Salas E, editors. Teams: their training and performance. Norwood: Ablex; 1992.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cohen SG, Bailey DR. What makes teams work: group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. J Manag. 1997;23:238–90.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Okhuysen GA, Bechky BA. Coordination in organizations: an integrative perspective. Acad Manag Ann. 2009;3:463–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kim S, Dunkin BJ, Paige JT, Eggerstedt JM, Nicholas C, Vassilliou MC, Spight DH, Pliego JF, Rush RM, Lau JN, Carpenter RO, Scott DJ. What is the future of training in surgery? Needs assessment of national stakeholders. Surgery. 2014;156:707–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rosen MA, Salas E, Wilson KA, et al. Measuring team performance in simulation-based training: adopting best practices for healthcare. Simul Healthc. 2008;3:33–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Weaver SJ, Rosen MA, DiazGranados D, Lazzara EH, Lyons R, et al. Does teamwork improve performance in the operating room? A multilevel evaluation. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2010;36:133–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Scott DJ, Dunnington GL. The new ACS/APDS skills curriculum: moving the learning curve out of the operating room. J Gastrointest Surg. 2008;12:213–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    World Health Organization. Framework for action on interprofessional education and collaborative practice: a health professions networks, nursing, and midwifery, human resources for health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lockman JL, Ambardekar A, Deutsch ES. Optimizing education with in situ simulation. In: Palaganas JC, Maxworthy JC, Epps CA, Mancini ME, editors. Defining excellence in simulation programs. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer; 2015.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Raemer DB. Ignaz Semmelweis redux? Simul Healthc. 2014;9:153–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Goldstein IL, Ford K. Training in organizations: needs assessment, development, and evaluation. Belmont: Wadsworth; 2002.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yule S, Flin R, Maran N, Rowley D, Youngson G, Paterson-Brown S. Surgeons’ nontechnical skills in the operating room: reliability testing of the NOTSS behavior rating system. World J Surg. 2008;32:548–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mitchell L, Flin R, Yule S, Mitchell J, Coutts K, Youngson G. Development of a behavioural marker system for scrub practitioners' non-technical skills (SPLINTS system). J Eval Clin Pract. 2013;19(2):317–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fletcher G, Flin R, McGeorge P, Glavin R, Maran N, Patey R. Anaesthetists’ nontechnical skills (ANTS): evaluation of a behavioral marking system. Br J Anaesth. 2003;90:580–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hull L, Arora S, Kassab E, et al. Observational teamwork assessment for surgery: content validation and tool refinement. J Am Coll Surg. 2011;212:234–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dietz AS, Pronovost PJ, Benson KN, Mendez-Tellez PA, Dwyer C, Wyskiel R, Rosen MA. A systematic review of behavioural marker systems in healthcare: what do we know about their attributes, validity and application? BMJ Qual Saf. 2014;23(12):1031–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sharma B, Mishra A, Aggarwal R, Grantcharov TP. Nontechnical skills assessment in surgery. Surg Oncol. 2011;20(3):169–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cumin D, Boyd MJ, Webster CS, Weller JM. A systematic review of simulation for multidisciplinary team training in operating rooms. Simul Healthc. 2013;8(3):171–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hull L, Arora S, Aggarwal R, Darzi A, Vincent C, Sevdalis N. The impact of nontechnical skills on technical performance in surgery: a systematic review. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;214(2):214–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gardner AK, Russo MA, Jabbour II, Kosemund M, Scott DJ. Frame of reference training for simulation-based intraoperative communication assessment. Am J Surg. 2016;212:548.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2016.02.009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hull L, Arora S, Symons NR, Jalil R, Darzi A, Vincent C. Sevdalis N; Delphi expert consensus panel. Training faculty in nontechnical skill assessment: national guidelines on program requirements. Ann Surg. 2013;258(2):370–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Krokos KJ, Baker DP, Alonso A, Day R. Assessing team processes in complex environments: challenges in transitioning research to practice. In: Salas E, Goodwin BCS, editors. Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross-disciplinary perspective and approaches. New York: Taylor & Francis/Routledge; 2009.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    McCulloch P, Rathbone J, Catchpole K. Interventions to improve teamwork and communications among healthcare staff. Br J Surg. 2011;98(4):469–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Neily J, Mills PD, Young-Xu Y, Carney BT, West P, Berger DH, Mazzia LM, Paull DE, Bagian JP. Association between implementation of a medical team training program and surgical mortality. JAMA. 2010;304(15):1693–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Young-Xu Y, Neily J, Mills PD, Carney BT, West P, Berger DH, Mazzia LM, Paull DE, Bagian JP. Association between implementation of a medical team training program and surgical morbidity. Arch Surg. 2011;46(12):1368–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Eppich W, Howard V, Vozenilek J, Curran I. Simulation-based team training in healthcare. Simul Healthc. 2011;6(Suppl):S14–9.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0b013e318229f550.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Korndorffer JR Jr, Arora S, Sevdalis N, Paige J, McClusky DA 3rd, Stefanidis D, PEGASUS Research Group. The American College of Surgeons/Association of Program Directors in surgery National Skills Curriculum: adoption rate, challenges and strategies for effective implementation into surgical residency programs. Surgery. 2013;154(1):13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Admin Pol Ment Health. 2011;28:65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Stefanidis D, Sevdalis N, Paige J, Zevin B, Aggarwal R, Grantcharov T, Jones DB, Association for Surgical Education Simulation Committee. Simulation in surgery: what's needed next? Ann Surg. 2015;261(5):846–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Matthieu MM, et al. Use of concept mapping to characterize relationships among implementation strategies and assess their feasibility and importance: results from the expert recommendations for implementing change (ERIC) study. Implement Sci. 2015;10:109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Powell BJ, Beidas RS, Lewis CC, et al. Methods to improve the selection and tailoring of implementation strategies. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2017;44(2):177–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Tuckman BW. Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychol Bull. 1965;63(6):384–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Mohammed S, Hamilton K, Lim A. The incorporation of time in team research: past, current, and future. In: Salas E, Goodwin BCS, editors. Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross-disciplinary perspective and approaches. New York: Taylor & Francis/Routledge; 2009.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Burke CS, Stagl KC, Salas E, Pierce L, Kendall DL. Understanding team adaptation: a conceptual analysis and model. J Appl Psychol. 2006;91:1189–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Health Professions, Department of Surgery, Baylor College of MedicineHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Health Service and Population ResearchKing’s College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations