ArticleBMJ open2016
Trauma teams and time to early management during in situ trauma team training.
Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Team leader communication in ad hoc teams and its impact on team outcomes: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2025Pooled it
- GENESISS 2-Generating Standards for In-Situ Simulation project: a systematic mapping review.BMC medical education · 2022Pooled it
- Use and effectiveness of directed, closed-loop communication in the operating theatre: mixed methods analysis of simulated clinical emergencies.British journal of anaesthesia · 2025Article
- Remodeling the trauma bay to improve communication and patient care: a novel approach to trauma resuscitations.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2025Article
- Multi-disciplinary, simulation-based, standardised trauma team training within the Victorian State Trauma System.Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA · 2023Article
- Article
- GENESISS 1-Generating Standards for In-Situ Simulation project: a scoping review and conceptual model.BMC medical education · 2022Article
- Challenges to the implementation of in situ simulation at HEMS bases: a qualitative study of facilitators' expectations and strategies.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2021Article
- Whether two heads are better than one is the wrong question (though sometimes they are).Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2020Review
- An observational study of self-monitoring in ad hoc health care teams.BMC medical education · 2020Observational
- Simulation Training in the ICU.Chest · 2019Review
- The World Health Organization trauma checklist versus Trauma Team Time-out: A perspective.Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA · 2019Article
- Rating the quality of teamwork-a comparison of novice and expert ratings using the Team Emergency Assessment Measure (TEAM) in simulated emergencies.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2019Article
- Team talk and team activity in simulated medical emergencies: a discourse analytical approach.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the association between the time taken to make a decision to go to surgery and gender, ethnicity, years in profession, experience of trauma team training, experience of structured trauma courses and trauma in the trauma team, as well as use of closed-loop communication and leadership styles during trauma team training.
designIn situ trauma team training. The patient simulator was preprogrammed to represent a severely injured patient (injury severity score: 25) suffering from hypovolemia due to external trauma.
settingAn emergency room in an urban Scandinavian level one trauma centre.
participantsA total of 96 participants were divided into 16 trauma teams. Each team consisted of six team members: one surgeon/emergency physician (designated team leader), one anaesthesiologist, one registered nurse anaesthetist, one registered nurse from the emergency department, one enrolled nurse from the emergency department and one enrolled nurse from the operating theatre. PRIMARY OUTCOME: HRs with CIs (95% CI) for the time taken to make a decision to go to surgery was computed from a Cox proportional hazards model.
resultsThree variables remained significant in the final model. Closed-loop communication initiated by the team leader increased the chance of a decision to go to surgery (HR: 3.88; CI 1.02 to 14.69). Only 8 of the 16 teams made the decision to go to surgery within the timeframe of the trauma team training. Conversely, call-outs and closed-loop communication initiated by the team members significantly decreased the chance of a decision to go to surgery, (HR: 0.82; CI 0.71 to 0.96, and HR: 0.23; CI 0.08 to 0.71, respectively).
conclusionsClosed-loop communication initiated by the leader appears to be beneficial for teamwork. In contrast, a high number of call-outs and closed-loop communication initiated by team members might lead to a communication overload.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.