Observational studyBMJ open2023
Defining conditions for effective interdisciplinary care team communication in an open surgical intensive care unit: a qualitative study.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2023. 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.
- Debriefing in practice: a cross-sectional observational study of self-reflection competence, psychological safety and speak-up in paramedic training.BMC medical education · 2026Observational
- Barriers and Strategies to Effective Serious Illness Communication for Patients with End-Stage Liver Disease in the Intensive Care Setting.Journal of intensive care medicine · 2026Review
- Psychological Safety of Critical Care Nurses in Finland.Nursing in critical care · 2026Article
- Overcoming disciplinary divides in scientific collaboration: challenges and pathways.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- To assess the level of knowledge, attitude, and practice of communication among ICU trainees across India, TALK ICU SURVEY.BMC medical education · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivePoor interdisciplinary care team communication has been associated with increased mortality. The study aimed to define conditions for effective interdisciplinary care team communication.
designAn observational cross-sectional qualitative study.
settingA surgical intensive care unit in a large, urban, academic referral medical centre.
participantsA total 6 interviews and 10 focus groups from February to June 2021 (N=33) were performed. Interdisciplinary clinicians who cared for critically ill patients were interviewed. Participants included intensivist, transplant, colorectal, vascular, surgical oncology, trauma faculty surgeons (n=10); emergency medicine, surgery, gynaecology, radiology physicians-in-training (n=6), advanced practice providers (n=5), nurses (n=7), fellows (n=1) and subspecialist clinicians such as respiratory therapists, pharmacists and dieticians (n=4). Audiorecorded content of interviews and focus groups were deidentified and transcribed verbatim. The study team iteratively generated the codebook. All transcripts were independently coded by two team members. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Conditions for effective interdisciplinary care team communication.
resultsWe identified five themes relating to conditions for effective interdisciplinary care team communication in our surgical intensive care unit setting: role definition, formal processes, informal communication pathways, hierarchical influences and psychological safety. Participants reported that clear role definition and standardised formal communication processes empowered clinicians to engage in discussions that mitigated hierarchy and facilitated psychological safety.
conclusionsStandardising communication and creating defined roles in formal processes can promote effective interdisciplinary care team communication by fostering psychological safety.
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.