Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32520943›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2020

Systematic review of the characteristics of brief team interventions to clarify roles and improve functioning in healthcare teams.

Kelley Kilpatrick, Lysane Paquette, Mira Jabbour, Eric Tchouaket, Nicolas Fernandez, Grace Al Hakim, Véronique Landry, Nathalie Gauthier, Marie-Dominique Beaulieu, Carl-Ardy Dubois

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Using FRAM visualisations in quality improvement projects: identifying and testing strategies to improve anticoagulant use in the perioperative process.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Nurses' contribution to antimicrobial stewardship: business as usual?Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2024
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. A behavioural study of obedience in health professional students.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

10 authors.

Kelley KilpatrickSusan E. French Chair in Nursing Research and Innovative Practice, Ingram School of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2137-6560
Lysane PaquetteFaculty of Nursing, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Mira JabbourCentre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de l'Est-de-l'Île-de-Montréal-Hôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont (CIUSSS-EMTL-HMR), Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Eric TchouaketDepartment of Nursing, Université du Québec en Outaouais, Saint-Jérôme, Québec, Canada.
Nicolas FernandezDepartment of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-3840-2641
Grace Al HakimClinical and Professional Development Center, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon.
Véronique LandryFaculty of Nursing, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Nathalie GauthierNursing and Physical Health Directorate, Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Capitale-Nationale, Québec, Québec, Canada.
Marie-Dominique BeaulieuFaculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Carl-Ardy DuboisDepartment of Management, Evaluation and Health Policy, School of Public Health, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada.

Funding

CIHR 201603PJT
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimDescribe brief (less than half a day) interventions aimed at improving healthcare team functioning.

methodsA systematic review on brief team interventions aimed at role clarification and team functioning (PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42018088922). Experimental or quasi-experimental studies were included. Database searches included CINAHL, Medline, EMBASE, PUBMED, Cochrane, RCT Registry-1990 to April 2020 and grey literature. Articles were screened independently by teams of two reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed. Data from the retained articles were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer independently. A narrative synthesis was undertaken.

resultsSearches yielded 1928 unique records. Final sample contained twenty papers describing 19 studies, published between 2009 and 2020. Studies described brief training interventions conducted in acute care in-patient settings and included a total of 6338 participants. Participants' socio-demographic information was not routinely reported. Studies met between two to six of the eight risk of bias criteria. Interventions included simulations for technical skills, structured communications and speaking up for non-technical skills and debriefing. Debriefing sessions generally lasted between five to 10 minutes. Debriefing sessions reflected key content areas but it was not always possible to determine the influence of the debriefing session on participants' learning because of the limited information reported. DISCUSSION: Interest in short team interventions is recent. Single two-hour sessions appear to improve technical skills. Three to four 30- to 60-minute training sessions spread out over several weeks with structured facilitation and debriefing appear to improve non-technical skills. Monthly meetings appear to sustain change over time.

conclusionShort team interventions show promise to improve team functioning. Effectiveness of interventions in primary care and the inclusion of patients and families needs to be examined. Primary care teams are structured differently than teams in acute care and they may have different priorities.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareEducation, ContinuingHealth PersonnelHumansLearningPatient Care Team

Identifiers

PMID32520943
PMCPMC7286504

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.