Advertisement

Team Adaptation to Complex Clinical Situations: The Case of VTE Prophylaxis in Hospitalized Patients

  • Megan E. SalweiEmail author
  • Pascale Carayon
  • Ann Schoofs Hundt
  • Peter Kleinschmidt
  • Peter Hoonakker
  • Brian W. Patterson
  • Douglas Wiegmann
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 818)

Abstract

Intensive care units (ICUs) are complex environments, which rely on teams in order to coordinate patient care. Venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is a major concern for ICU patients, who are frequently immobile. VTE prophylaxis (prevention) occurs throughout different stages of a patient’s stay in the ICU, which range in levels of complexity. The objective of this study is to use social network analysis to understand team adaptation in response to different levels of complexity in the VTE prophylaxis process. The more complex stages of VTE prophylaxis involve more people, more team activities, more team interactions, and more two-way communication compared to the less complex stages. Social network analysis can be used to understand team adaptation to these different levels of complexity in a patient’s ICU care.

Keywords

Team adaptation Social network analysis Complexity Patient safety 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This project was supported by Grant Number R01HS022086 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The project was also partially supported by the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program, through the NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), Grant UL1TR000427. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

References

  1. 1.
    Wood KE (2011) Major pulmonary embolism. Crit Care Clin 27:885–906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Qaseem A, Chou R, Humphrey LL, Starkey M, Shekelle P (2011) Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in hospitalized patients: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med 155:625–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hundt AS, Carayon P, Yang Y, Stamm J, Agrawal V, Kleinschmidt P, Hoonakker P (2017) Role network analysis of team interactions and individual activities: application to VTE prophylaxis. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, pp 896–900Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burke CS, Stagl KC, Salas E, Pierce L, Kendall D (2006) Understanding team adaptation: a conceptual analysis and model. J Appl Psychol 91:1189–1207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Houghton RJ, Baber C, McMaster R, Stanton NA, Salmon P, Stewart R, Walker G (2006) Command and control in emergency services operations: a social network analysis. Ergonomics 49:1204–1225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Houghton RJ, Baber C, Stanton NA, Jenkins DP, Revell K (2015) Combining network analysis with cognitive work analysis: insights into social organisational and cooperation analysis. Ergonomics 58:434–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baber C, Stanton N, Atkinson J, McMaster R, Houghton RJ (2013) Using social network analysis and agent-based modelling to explore information flow using common operational pictures for maritime search and rescue operations. Ergonomics 56:889–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schraagen JM, Post W (2014) Characterizing naval team readiness through social network analysis. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, pp 325–329Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Espinosa JA, Clark MA (2014) Team knowledge representation: a network perspective. Hum Factors 56:333–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Euerby A, Burns CM (2014) Improving social connection through a communities-of-practice-inspired cognitive work analysis approach. Hum Factors 56:361–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McCurdie T, Sanderson P, Aitken LM (2018) Applying social network analysis to the examination of interruptions in healthcare. Appl Ergon 67:50–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Barth S, Schraagen JM, Schmettow M (2015) Network measures for characterising team adaptation processes. Ergonomics 58:1287–1302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Smith M, Carayon-Sainfort P (1989) A balance theory of job design for stress reduction. Int J Ind Ergon 4:67–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Carayon P (2009) The balance theory and the work system model… Twenty years later. Int J Hum Comput Interact 25:313–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Carayon P, Hundt AS, Karsh B, Gurses AP, Alvarado C, Smith M, Brennan PF (2006) Work system design for patient safety: the SEIPS model. BMJ Qual Saf 15:i50–i58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Valente TW (2010) Social networks and health: models, methods, and applications. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Megan E. Salwei
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Pascale Carayon
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ann Schoofs Hundt
    • 2
  • Peter Kleinschmidt
    • 3
  • Peter Hoonakker
    • 2
  • Brian W. Patterson
    • 2
    • 3
  • Douglas Wiegmann
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Industrial and Systems EngineeringUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Center for Quality and Productivity ImprovementUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  3. 3.School of Medicine and Public HealthUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations