Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39009973›Full record

Observational studyBMC emergency medicine2024

Exploring differences in patient participation in simulated emergency cases in co-located and distributed rural emergency teams - an observational study with a randomized cross-over design.

Hanna Dubois, Tanja Manser, Henrike Häbel, Maria Härgestam, Johan Creutzfeldt

Abstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC emergency medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Teamwork in Rural Emergency Health Care: A Simulation-Based Cross-over Study of Co-located and Distributed Teams.Simulation in healthcare : journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare · 2025
    Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Hanna DuboisDepartment of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, K32 Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, S-14186, Sweden. hanna.dubois@ki.se.
Tanja ManserDepartment of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, K32 Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, S-14186, Sweden.
Henrike HäbelDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Medical Statistics Unit, Karolinska Institutet, C7, Stockholm, S-171 77, Sweden.
Maria HärgestamDepartment of Nursing, Umeå University, S-907 87, Umeå, Sweden.
Johan CreutzfeldtDepartment of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, K32 Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, S-14186, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn northern rural Sweden, telemedicine is used to improve access to healthcare and to provide patient-centered care. In emergency care during on-call hours, video-conference systems are used to connect the physicians to the rest of the team - creating 'distributed teams'. Patient participation is a core competency for healthcare professionals. Knowledge about how distributed teamwork affects patient participation is missing. The aim was to investigate if and how teamwork affecting patient participation, as well as clinicians' perceptions regarding shared decision-making differ between co-located and distributed emergency teams.

methodsIn an observational study with a randomized cross-over design, healthcare professionals (n = 51) participated in authentic teams (n = 17) in two scripted simulated emergency scenarios with a standardized patient: one as a co-located team and the other as a distributed team. Team performances were filmed and observed by independent raters using the PIC-ET tool to rate patient participation behavior. The participants individually filled out the Dyadic OPTION questionnaire after the respective scenarios to measure perceptions of shared decision-making. Scores in both instruments were translated to percentage of a maximum score. The observational data between the two settings were compared using linear mixed-effects regression models and the self-reported questionnaire data were compared using one-way ANOVA. Neither the participants nor the observers were blinded to the allocations.

resultsA significant difference in observer rated overall patient participation behavior was found, mean 51.1 (± 11.5) % for the co-located teams vs 44.7 (± 8.6) % for the distributed teams (p = 0.02). In the PIC-ET tool category 'Sharing power', the scores decreased from 14.4 (± 12.4) % in the co-located teams to 2 (± 4.4) % in the distributed teams (p = 0.001). Co-located teams scored in mean 60.5% (± 14.4) when self-assessing shared decision-making, vs 55.8% (± 15.1) in the distributed teams (p = 0.03).

conclusionsTeam behavior enabling patient participation was found decreased in distributed teams, especially regarding sharing power with the patient. This finding was also mirrored in the self-assessments of the healthcare professionals. This study highlights the risk of an increased power asymmetry between patients and distributed emergency teams and can serve as a basis for further research, education, and quality improvement.

Indexed as

Cross-Over StudiesPatient Care TeamPatient ParticipationAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient SimulationRural Health ServicesSwedenCottage hospitalEmergency careObservational studyPatient-centered carePatient participationRural healthcareShared decision-makingTeamworkTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID39009973
PMCPMC11247836

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.