A comparative assessment and gap analysis of commonly used team rating scales

Identifying the relative impact of process- and outcome-related team performance antecedents: a meta-analysis

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to identify, through an exploratory meta-analysis, which process- and outcome-related antecedents have the strongest relationship to overall team performance. The secondary objective is to create an understanding of the extent to which relative research interest in each construct to date has aligned with its reported effects.

Design/methodology/approach

This study uses a random-effects meta-analysis on studies that have measured the relationship between at least one process or outcome factor and overall team performance. The number of studies, effect size and between-study variances are captured and analyzed for each process/outcome factor. Prior literature has explored relationships between various process/outcome factors and overall team performance. This study expands on previous literature by examining a comprehensive set of process/outcome factors and their relative impact on overall team performance.

Findings

A meta-analysis of 190 effect sizes extracted from 52 empirical studies over the past two decades (1999–2020) showed the specific process and outcome factors that most strongly contributed to overall team performance were efficiency, schedule and innovation. In addition, only a weak correlation was found between process and outcome factors’ relationships with overall team performance and how often they are studied in the research community.

Originality/value

This study contributes to the body of knowledge on team performance by examining prior research to identify the relevant impact of various process and outcome factors on overall team performance. In addition, this study also assesses the extent to which research interest in these factors has appeared to match their relative impact. Analyzing the relative impact of various process and outcome factors allows researchers and practitioners to better identify methods to create improvement in overall team performance. Based on the findings, prioritizing efficiency, schedule and innovation may promote overall team performance.

Systematic review of methods for quantifying teamwork in the operating theatre

Background

Teamwork in the operating theatre is becoming increasingly recognized as a major factor in clinical outcomes. Many tools have been developed to measure teamwork. Most fall into two categories: self‐assessment by theatre staff and assessment by observers. A critical and comparative analysis of the validity and reliability of these tools is lacking.

Methods

MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched following PRISMA guidelines. Content validity was assessed using measurements of inter‐rater agreement, predictive validity and multisite reliability, and interobserver reliability using statistical measures of inter‐rater agreement and reliability. Quantitative meta‐analysis was deemed unsuitable.

Results

Forty‐eight articles were selected for final inclusion; self‐assessment tools were used in 18 and observational tools in 28, and there were two qualitative studies. Self‐assessment of teamwork by profession varied with the profession of the assessor. The most robust self‐assessment tool was the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ), although this failed to demonstrate multisite reliability. The most robust observational tool was the Non‐Technical Skills (NOTECHS) system, which demonstrated both test–retest reliability (P > 0·09) and interobserver reliability (Rwg = 0·96).

Conclusion

Self‐assessment of teamwork by the theatre team was influenced by professional differences. Observational tools, when used by trained observers, circumvented this.

Training Tools for Nontechnical Skills for Surgeons-A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Development of nontechnical skills for surgeons has been recognized as an important factor in surgical care. Training tools for this specific domain are being created and validated to maximize the surgeon's nontechnical ability. This systematic review aims to outline, address, and recommend these training tools.

DESIGN

A full and comprehensive literature search, using a systematic format, was performed on ScienceDirect and PubMed, with data extraction occurring in line with specified inclusion criteria.

SETTING

Systematic review was performed fully at King's College London.

RESULTS

A total of 84 heterogeneous articles were used in this review. Further, 23 training tools including scoring systems, training programs, and mixtures of the two for a range of specialities were identified in the literature. Most can be applied to surgery overall, although some tools target specific specialities (such as neurosurgery). Interrater reliability, construct, content, and face validation statuses were variable according to the specific tool in question.

CONCLUSIONS

Study results pertaining to nontechnical skill training tools have thus far been universally positive, but further studies are required for those more recently developed and less extensively used tools. Recommendations can be made for individual training tools based on their level of validation and for their target audience. Based on the number of studies performed and their status of validity, NOTSS and Oxford NOTECHS II can be considered the gold standard for individual- and team-based nontechnical skills training, respectively, especially when used in conjunction with a training program.