Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31915007›Full record

SynthesisHuman resources for health2020

Interventions to improve team effectiveness within health care: a systematic review of the past decade.

Martina Buljac-Samardzic, Kirti D Doekhie, Jeroen D H van Wijngaarden

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Human resources for health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 184 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
184citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
58.5field-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

184 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 469 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

124 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Martina Buljac-SamardzicErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Bayle building, p.o. box 1738, 3000, DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. BULJAC@ESHPM.EUR.NL.
Kirti D DoekhieErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Bayle building, p.o. box 1738, 3000, DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Jeroen D H van WijngaardenErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Bayle building, p.o. box 1738, 3000, DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Erasmus University Rotterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA high variety of team interventions aims to improve team performance outcomes. In 2008, we conducted a systematic review to provide an overview of the scientific studies focused on these interventions. However, over the past decade, the literature on team interventions has rapidly evolved. An updated overview is therefore required, and it will focus on all possible team interventions without restrictions to a type of intervention, setting, or research design.

objectivesTo review the literature from the past decade on interventions with the goal of improving team effectiveness within healthcare organizations and identify the "evidence base" levels of the research.

methodsSeven major databases were systematically searched for relevant articles published between 2008 and July 2018. Of the original search yield of 6025 studies, 297 studies met the inclusion criteria according to three independent authors and were subsequently included for analysis. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Scale was used to assess the level of empirical evidence.

resultsThree types of interventions were distinguished: (1) Training, which is sub-divided into training that is based on predefined principles (i.e. CRM: crew resource management and TeamSTEPPS: Team Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance and Patient Safety), on a specific method (i.e. simulation), or on general team training. (2) Tools covers tools that structure (i.e. SBAR: Situation, Background, Assessment, and Recommendation, (de)briefing checklists, and rounds), facilitate (through communication technology), or trigger (through monitoring and feedback) teamwork. (3) Organizational (re)design is about (re)designing structures to stimulate team processes and team functioning. (4) A programme is a combination of the previous types. The majority of studies evaluated a training focused on the (acute) hospital care setting. Most of the evaluated interventions focused on improving non-technical skills and provided evidence of improvements.

conclusionOver the last decade, the number of studies on team interventions has increased exponentially. At the same time, research tends to focus on certain interventions, settings, and/or outcomes. Principle-based training (i.e. CRM and TeamSTEPPS) and simulation-based training seem to provide the greatest opportunities for reaching the improvement goals in team functioning.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHumansPatient Care TeamQuality ImprovementHealthcare teamsInterventionSystematic reviewTeam effectivenessTeam performanceTeam toolTeam training

Identifiers

PMID31915007
PMCPMC6950792
OpenAlexW2999221681

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.