ArticleThe journal of extra-corporeal technology2014
Teamwork, communication, formula-one racing and the outcomes of cardiac surgery.
Article in The journal of extra-corporeal technology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Impact of physician's sex/gender on processes of care, and clinical outcomes in cardiac operative care: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2020Pooled it
- Left circumflex artery occlusion during aortic valvuloplasty in a young patient with bicuspid aortic valve: a case report.JA clinical reports · 2025Article
- Developing Cardiothoracic Surgical Critical Care Intensivists: A Case for Distinct Training.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Review
- Interdisciplinary Simulation Using the Cardiopulmonary Bypass Simulator (CPBS)?The journal of extra-corporeal technology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Most cardiac units achieve excellent results today, but the risk of cardiac surgery is still relatively high, and avoidable harm is common. The story of the Green Lane Cardiothoracic Unit provides an exemplar of excellence, but also illustrates the challenges associated with changes over time and with increases in the size of a unit and the complexity of practice today. The ultimate aim of cardiac surgery should be the best outcomes for (often very sick) patients rather than an undue focus on the prevention of error or adverse events. Measurement is fundamental to improving quality in health care, and the framework of structure, process, and outcome is helpful in considering how best to achieve this. A combination of outcomes (including some indicators of important morbidity) with key measures of process is advocated. There is substantial evidence that failures in teamwork and communication contribute to inefficiency and avoidable harm in cardiac surgery. Minor events are as important as major ones. Six approaches to improving teamwork (and hence outcomes) in cardiac surgery are suggested. These are: 1) subspecialize and replace tribes with teams; 2) sort out the leadership while flattening the gradients of authority; 3) introduce explicit training in effective communication; 4) use checklists, briefings, and debriefings and engage in the process; 5) promote a culture of respect alongside a commitment to excellence and a focus on patients; 6) focus on the performance of the team, not on individuals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24779113PMC4557515What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.