ArticleDer Anaesthesist2017
[Role-specific targets and teamwork in the operating room].
Article in Der Anaesthesist, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Impact of Assessment of Nurses' Experiences in Thoracic Surgery in Onco-Hematological Patients.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- [Professional teamwork and communication in the operating room-A narrative review].Der Anaesthesist · 2022Review
- Enhancing Interprofessional Collaboration in Perioperative Setting from the Qualitative Perspectives of Physicians and Nurses.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Decreasing Room Traffic in Orthopedic Surgery: A Quality Improvement Initiative.American journal of medical quality : the official journal of the American College of Medical QualityArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe primary goal of a surgical team is the successful performance of an operation on a patien; however, this primary goal can show discrepancies from the goals of individual team members. The main causes for differences of interests can be variations in subjective preferences and organizational differences. Subjective preferences are due to the values held by those involved. These values are of an intrinsic nature and therefore difficult to change. Another reason for individual goals is that hospitals and universities are professional bureaucracies. Experts working in professional bureaucracies are known to identify themselves to a greater extent with their respective profession than with their institution; however, teams in the operating room (OR) have to work together in multidisciplinary teams. The main goal of this analysis is to document role-specific targets and motivations within teams.
methodsThis was a case study at a university hospital with 40 operating rooms. The data collection resulted from the three pillars of the goal documentation instrument, which includes expert interviews, a utility analysis and card placement as a basis for communicative validation. The results were analyzed with a systematic method as a qualitative content analysis. The four-pillar success model, which maps aspects of a successful hospital, was used as a deductive coding scheme. The four pillars represent the level of medical quality (process, structure and outcome quality), economy and efficiency, client satisfaction (patients and referring physicians) and employee satisfaction. At a university hospital an additional focus is on research and teaching. In addition to the four pillar success model as a deductive coding scheme, an inductive coding scheme was introduced. Approximately 10% of the employees from each professional group (surgeons, anesthesiologists, OR nurses, nurse anesthetists) were interviewed resulting in 65 interviews overall. The interviews were conducted within a time span of 4 months.
resultsConsidering the main categories quality of medical care, economy and efficiency, patient satisfaction and employee satisfaction as well as research and teaching, surgeons thought the categories of economy and efficiency (37%) and quality of medical care (34%) to be the most important. For anesthesiologists, however, the category of employee satisfaction (38%) was most important, followed by the category of economy and efficiency (31%). For the OR nurses as well as for the nurse anesthetists the category of employee satisfaction was of highest priority (61% and 57%, respectively).
conclusionThe results show that considering the main categories no dimension is equally important for the participating professional groups. This can result in goal conflicts. Additionally, the ad hoc teams make it impossible for team building to occur, making it difficult for the professional groups to adapt to each other and the individual goals. This presents a high potential for conflict. The difference in the perception of the importance of employee satisfaction is a crucial factor for emerging conflicts in the OR, as employee satisfaction correlates with productivity and patient satisfaction. Knowing and communicating the different goals is a first step for optimizing the OR management system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29085962What 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.