Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39427234›Full record

ArticleDiagnosis (Berlin, Germany)2025

From stable teamwork to dynamic teaming in the ambulatory care diagnostic process.

Scott I Tannenbaum, Eric J Thomas, Sigall K Bell, Eduardo Salas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Scott I TannenbaumThe Group for Organizational Effectiveness, Inc., Albany, NY, USA.
Eric J ThomasThe UTHealth-Memorial Hermann Center for Healthcare Quality and Safety, McGovern Medical School at UTHealth, Houston, TX, USA.
Sigall K BellDepartment of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Eduardo SalasDepartment of Psychological Sciences, Rice University, Houston, TX, USA.

Funding

AHRQ HHS R18 HS029362
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dynamic teaming is required whenever people must coordinate with one another in a fluid context, particularly when the fundamental structures of a team, such as membership, priorities, tasks, modes of communication, and location are in near-constant flux. This is certainly the case in the contemporary ambulatory care diagnostic process, where circumstances and conditions require a shifting cast of individuals to coordinate dynamically to ensure patient safety. This article offers an updated perspective on dynamic teaming commonly required during the ambulatory diagnostic process. Drawing upon team science, it clarifies the characteristics of dynamic diagnostic teams, identifies common risk points in the teaming process and the practical implications of these risks, considers the role of providers and patients in averting adverse outcomes, and provides a case example of the challenges of dynamic teaming during the diagnostic process. Based on this, future research needs are offered as well as clinical practice recommendations related to team characteristics and breakdowns, team member knowledge/cognitions, teaming dynamics, and the patient as a team member.

Indexed as

Ambulatory CarePatient Care TeamCommunicationCooperative BehaviorHumansPatient Safetyambulatory carediagnostic processteamingteamwork

Identifiers

PMID39427234
PMCPMC11839144

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.