ArticleBMJ open2018
Team talk and team decision processes: a qualitative discourse analytical approach to 10 real-life medical emergency team encounters.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Midwives' experiences with simulation-based team training in newborn resuscitation: impacts on clinical practice.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Elements of Teamwork in Resuscitation: An Integrative Review.Bulletin of emergency and trauma · 2022Review
- Stroke follow-up in primary care: a discourse study on the discharge summary as a tool for knowledge transfer and collaboration.BMC health services research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesExplore the function of three specific modes of talk (discourse types) in decision-making processes.
designTen real-life admissions of patients with critical illness were audio/video recorded and transcribed. Activity-type analysis (a qualitative discourse analytical method) was applied.
settingInterdisciplinary emergency teams admitting patients with critical illness in a Norwegian university hospital emergency department (ED).
participantsAll emergency teams consisted of at least two internal medicine physicians, two ED nurses, one anaesthetist and one nurse anaesthetist. The number of healthcare professionals involved in each emergency team varied between 11 and 20, and some individuals were involved with more than one team.
resultsThe three discourse types played significant roles in team decision-making processes when negotiating meaning. Online commentaries (ONC) and metacommentaries (MC) created progression while offline commentaries (OFC) temporarily placed decisions on hold. Both ONC and MC triggered action and distributed tasks, resources and responsibility in the team. OFC sought mutual understanding and created a broader base for decisions.
conclusionA discourse analytical perspective on team talk in medical emergencies illuminates both the dynamics and complexity of teamwork. Here, we draw attention to the way specific modes of talk function in negotiating mutual understanding and distributing tasks and responsibilities in non-algorithm-driven activities. The analysis uncovers a need for an enhanced focus on how language can trigger safe team practice and integrate this knowledge in teamwork training to improve communication skills in ad hoc emergency teams.
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.