Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42828665›Full record

ArticleCJEM2026

Team decision-making in high-stakes time-pressured environments: what helps and what hinders?

Fiona Raymond, Mitchell C Profeit, Andrew K Hall, Valentina Ly, Warren J Cheung

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in CJEM, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Fiona RaymondDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. firaymond@toh.ca.
Mitchell C ProfeitSchool of Kinesiology and Health Studies, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Andrew K HallDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Valentina LyHealth Sciences Library, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Warren J CheungDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTeam decision-making is central to effective practice in high-acuity healthcare environments, yet most decision-making research in medicine remains focused on individuals rather than teams. This narrative review synthesizes evidence across various fields, including aviation, military, crisis response, and team sport, to identify key factors that influence team decision-making in time-bound, high-stakes settings, and to examine how these insights may inform practice in acute care and resuscitation medicine.

methodsA systematic search of MEDLINE and Scopus databases following previously identified best practices for narrative review identified 595 unique records; after review by the first and second authors, 25 studies met inclusion criteria and focused explicitly on team-level decisions made under conditions of time pressure and high stakes. Included studies spanned healthcare, emergency response, crisis management, aviation, sport, business, and military contexts. These studies were then analyzed by the first author and themes were identified.

resultsContent analysis revealed five factors shaping team decision-making: role clarity, hierarchy, information sharing, team cognition, and team training. Across domains, clear and mutually understood roles have been shown to facilitate coordination, whereas role ambiguity resulted in conflict, redundancy, or unsafe task prioritization. Flexible, psychologically safe hierarchies, rather than rigid structures, enabled inclusive communication and reduced deference-based errors. Effective information sharing required both sufficiency and restraint, emphasizing relevance, timeliness, and shared situational awareness. Team cognition, including the development of shared mental models, was foundational for synchronizing actions under dynamic conditions. Finally, team training approaches that emphasize adaptability, cross-role understanding, pre-briefing, and debriefing cultivated resilience and improved decision accuracy under pressure.

conclusionThese findings suggest opportunities to strengthen decision-making in acute care by prioritizing early role clarification, flattening communication pathways, and designing training that targets soft resilience, shared cognition, and adaptive communication.

Indexed as

Emergency medicineHigh-stakes environmentsTeam cognitionTeam decision-makingTeamwork

Identifiers

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.