Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30826798›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2019

Crew resource management training in healthcare: a systematic review of intervention design, training conditions and evaluation.

Benedict Gross, Leonie Rusin, Jan Kiesewetter, Jan M Zottmann, Martin R Fischer, Stephan Prückner, Alexandra Zech

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
22.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 141 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Dedicated teams to optimize quality and safety of surgery: A systematic review.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Benedict GrossInstitute for Emergency Medicine and Management in Medicine, University Hospital LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Leonie RusinInstitute for Emergency Medicine and Management in Medicine, University Hospital LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Jan KiesewetterInstitute for Medical Education, University Hospital LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Jan M ZottmannInstitute for Medical Education, University Hospital LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Martin R FischerInstitute for Medical Education, University Hospital LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Stephan PrücknerInstitute for Emergency Medicine and Management in Medicine, University Hospital LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Alexandra ZechInstitute for Emergency Medicine and Management in Medicine, University Hospital LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DELMU Klinikum · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesCrew resource management (CRM) training formats have become a popular method to increase patient safety by consideration of the role that human factors play in healthcare delivery. The purposes of this review were to identify what is subsumed under the label of CRM in a healthcare context and to determine how such training is delivered and evaluated.

designSystematic review of published literature. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, PsycINFO and ERIC were searched through 8 October 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Individually constructed interventions for healthcare staff that were labelled as CRM training, or described as based on CRM principles or on aviation-derived human factors training. Only studies reporting both an intervention and results were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The studies were examined and coded for relevant passages. Characteristics regarding intervention design, training conditions and evaluation methods were analysed and summarised both qualitatively and quantitatively.

resultsSixty-one interventions were included. 48% did not explain any keyword of their CRM intervention to a reproducible detail. Operating room teams and surgery, emergency medicine, intensive care unit staff and anaesthesiology came in contact most with a majority of the CRM interventions delivered in a 1-day or half-day format. Trainer qualification is reported seldomly. Evaluation methods and levels display strong variation.

conclusionsCritical topics were identified for the CRM training community and include the following: the need to agree on common terms and definitions for CRM in healthcare, standards of good practice for reporting CRM interventions and their effects, as well as the need for more research to establish non-educational criteria for success in the implementation of CRM in healthcare organisations.

Indexed as

Patient SafetyHumansInservice TrainingPatient Care TeamProfessional CompetenceProgram Evaluationorganisational development

Identifiers

PMID30826798
PMCPMC6410092
OpenAlexW2919244860

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.