Multidisciplinary Delphi Development of a Scale to Evaluate Team Function in Obstetric Emergencies: The PETRA Scale

Followership in interprofessional healthcare teams: a state-of-the-art narrative review

OBJECTIVE

A state-of-the-art (SotA) literature review-a type of narrative review- was conducted to answer: What historical developments led to current conceptualisations of followership in interprofessional healthcare teams (IHTs)?

DESIGN

Working from a constructivist orientation, SotA literature reviews generate a chronological overview of how knowledge evolved and presents this summary in three parts: (1) this is where we are now, (2) this is how we got here and (3) this is where we should go next. Using the SotA six-stage methodology, a total of 48 articles focused on followership in IHTs were used in this study.

RESULTS

Articles about followership within IHTs first appeared in 1993. Until 2011, followership was framed as leader-centric; leaders used their position to influence followers to uphold their dictums. This perspective was challenged when scholars outside of healthcare emphasised the importance of team members for achieving goals, rejecting a myopic focus on physicians as leaders. Today, followership is an important focus of IHT research but two contradictory views are present: (1) followers are described as active team members in IHTs where shared leadership models prevail and (2) conceptually and practically, old ways of thinking about followership (ie, followers are passive team members) still occur. This incongruity has generated a variable set of qualities associated with good followership.

CONCLUSIONS

Leadership and followership are closely linked concepts. For leaders and followers in today's IHTs to flourish, the focus must be on followers being active members of the team instead of passive members. Since theories are increasingly encouraging distributed leadership, shared leadership and/or situational leadership, then we must understand the followership work that all team members need to harness. We need to be cognizant of team dynamics that work within different contexts and use leadership and followership conceptualisations that are congruent with those contexts.

Coleadership in Maternity Teams, a Randomized, Counterbalanced, Crossover Trial in Simulation

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to measure the effect of a coleadership model on team performance compared with singular leadership model in simulated maternity emergencies.

METHODS

A randomized, counterbalanced, crossover trial was performed at 2 tertiary maternity hospitals. Teams of obstetric physicians and nurse/midwives responded to 2 simulated maternity emergencies in either a singular or coleadership model. The primary outcome measure was teamwork rated with the Auckland Team Behavior tool. Secondary outcome measures included clinical performance (completion of critical tasks, time to critical intervention, documentation), self-rated teamwork (TEAM tool) and workload. Participants also answered a survey assessing their views on the coleadership model. Paired t tests and mixed-effects linear regression considering team as a random effect were used to estimate the unadjusted and adjusted associations between leadership model and the outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

There was no difference between leadership models for the primary outcome of teamwork (5.3 vs. 5.3, P = 0.91). Clinical outcome measures and self-rated teamwork scores were also similar. Team leaders reported higher workload than other team members, but these were not different between the leadership models. Participants viewed coleadership positively despite no measured objective evidence of benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

A coleadership model did not lead to a difference in team performance within simulated maternity emergencies. Despite this, participants viewed coleadership positively.

Mode of Delivery: Development and Implementation of an Obstetrical In Situ Simulation Program

OBJECTIVE

Simulation is increasingly valued as a learning tool in obstetrical practice. In situ simulation assesses the hands-on and critical thinking skills of a health care team within their clinical setting. We aimed to create an in situ simulation program to promote skills acquisition, enhance teamwork, and identify system limitations.

METHODS

Key obstetrical emergencies were identified through a needs assessment. In situ simulations were developed to address these clinical presentations. During simulations, organizers and participants identified latent safety threats. Medical management was evaluated through comprehensive emergency-specific checklists. Leadership attitudes were assessed using the modified Perinatal Emergency Team Response Assessment tool. Following each simulation, team members were debriefed, and qualitative and quantitative feedback was solicited and aggregated by specialty and discipline.

RESULTS

Simulations were conducted monthly at two academic centers over 14 months. Participation was interdisciplinary, including learners, staff physicians, nursing, and allied health team members from the departments of obstetrics, anesthesia, emergency medicine, and neonatology. Participants reported their involvement was enjoyable. Participants reported improvements in communication skills, content knowledge, and procedural knowledge. Participants favourably rated the spontaneity of simulations, clinically relevant scenarios, safe environment, and use of realistic equipment. Latent safety threats, related to equipment, medication, personnel, resources, and technical skills, were identified.

CONCLUSION

We present the successful implementation of a comprehensive in situ simulation program. In situ simulation allows for deliberate practice of obstetrical emergencies and promotes a culture of patient safety. Lessons learned provide valuable data to identify limitations within our current practices and inform future policy change.

Observer-based tools for non-technical skills assessment in simulated and real clinical environments in healthcare: a systematic review

Background

Over the past three decades multiple tools have been developed for the assessment of non-technical skills (NTS) in healthcare. This study was designed primarily to analyse how they have been designed and tested but also to consider guidance on how to select them.

Objectives

To analyse the context of use, method of development, evidence of validity (including reliability) and usability of tools for the observer-based assessment of NTS in healthcare.

Design

Systematic review.

Data sources

Search of electronic resources, including PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, ERIC, PsycNet, Scopus, Google Scholar and Web of Science. Additional records identified through searching grey literature (OpenGrey, ProQuest, AHRQ, King’s Fund, Health Foundation).

Study selection

Studies of observer-based tools for NTS assessment in healthcare professionals (or undergraduates) were included if they: were available in English; published between January 1990 and March 2018; assessed two or more NTS; were designed for simulated or real clinical settings and had provided evidence of validity plus or minus usability. 11,101 articles were identified. After limits were applied, 576 were retrieved for evaluation and 118 articles included in this review.

Results

One hundred and eighteen studies describing 76 tools for assessment of NTS in healthcare met the eligibility criteria. There was substantial variation in the method of design of the tools and the extent of validity, and usability testing. There was considerable overlap in the skills assessed, and the contexts of use of the tools.

Conclusion

This study suggests a need for rationalisation and standardisation of the way we assess NTS in healthcare and greater consistency in how tools are developed and deployed.