Observational Assessment of Surgical Teamwork: A Feasibility Study
- 1k Downloads
Teamwork is fundamental to effective surgery, yet there are currently no measures of teamwork to guide training, evaluate team interventions or assess the impact of teamwork on outcomes. We report the first steps in the development of an observational assessment of teamwork and preliminary findings.
We observed 50 operations in general surgery from a single operating theater using a measure of teamwork specifically developed for use in the operating theater. The OTAS (Observational Teamwork Assessment for Surgery) comprises a procedural task checklist centered on the patient, equipment and communications tasks and ratings on team behavior constructs, namely: communication, co-operation, co-ordination, shared-leadership and monitoring.
Ratings of overall team performance were reasonably high, though variable, but there was evidence that clinically significant steps were being missed which at the very least eroded safety margins. There was, for instance, a frequent failure to check both surgical and anesthetic equipment and a failure to confirm the procedure verbally, patient notes were missing in about one-eighth of the cases and delays or changes occurred in over two-thirds of the cases.
This study takes an initial step towards developing measures of team performance in surgery that are defined in relation to tasks and behaviors of the team. The observational method of assessment is feasible and can provide a wealth of potentially valuable research data. However, for these measures to be used for formal assessment, more research is needed to make them robust and standardized.
KeywordsBehavior Rating Task Completion Team Performance Task List Communication Task
We thank the BUPA foundation and the Department of Health: Patient Safety Research Programme for funding this work. We are grateful to Dr. Nick Sevdalis for his contribution to the revision of this manuscript. We would also like to thank our Surgical, Anaesthetic and Nursing Colleagues for their support and co-operation in this study.
- 3.Undre S, Sevdalis N, Healey AN, Darzi A, Vincent C. Teamwork in the operating theatre: cohesion or confusion? J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12:182–189. Google Scholar
- 11.Grommes P. Contributing to coherence: an empirical study of OR team communication. In: Minnick-Fox M, Williams A, Kaser E, editors. Proceedings of the 24th Penn Linguistics Colloquium. Univ Penn Working Papers Linguistics 2000;7:1, 87–98Google Scholar
- 13.Helmreich RL, Foushee HC. Why crew resource management? Empirical and theoretical basis of human factors training in aviation. In: Weiner EL, Kanki BG, Helmreich RL, editors. Cockpit Resource Management. New York, Academic, 1993:3–45Google Scholar
- 14.West M, Borrill C, Unsworth K. Team effectiveness in organisations. In: Cooper CL, Robertson IT, editors. International Review of Industrial Organisational Psychology, vol 13. Chichester, Wiley, 1998:1–48Google Scholar
- 17.Guzzo RA, Shea GP. Group performance and intergroup relations in organisations. In: Dunnette MD, Hough LM, editors. Handbook of Industrial and Organisational Psychology. Palo Alto: Consultant Psychological Press, 1992:269–313Google Scholar
- 18.Stewart GL, Barrick MR. Team structure and performance: assessing the mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type. Acad Manage J 2000; 43:135–148.Google Scholar
- 21.Dickinson T L, McIntyre RM.. A conceptual framework for teamwork measurement. In: Brannick MT, Salas E, Prince C editors, Team performance assessment and measurement, theory, methods, and applications . Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 1997:19-43.Google Scholar