Tensions influencing operating room team function: does institutional context make a difference?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A recent study of operating room (OR) team communication in a large, urban hospital described recurrent tension catalysts and a preliminary theory of team members' interpretive processes. To determine to what extent these findings were transferable to other institutional contexts, we conducted a validation study in 2 small, academic hospitals in a mid-size city. METHODS: Eight focus groups and 8 interviews were conducted with 6 general surgeons, 22 OR nurses, 5 anaesthesiologists and 10 trainees. Observations of 10 surgeons and their team members were conducted over 4 months. Data were analysed by applying thematic codes derived from previous research and engaging a grounded theory process to reveal additional, emergent themes. RESULTS: Observed tension catalysts were consistent with those described previously. However, 'higher tension' events occurred in only 70% of procedures in the smaller institutional context, as compared with at least 1 such event in all procedures in the larger setting. Interpretive processes were similar in teams from large and small institutional contexts. Team members referenced professional roles to interpret discourse, and they displayed recurrent role disagreements. Role perception influenced the motivations individuals attributed to colleagues' discourse, which influenced interpretations and reactions. CONCLUSIONS: Overall tension levels are lower in OR teams in smaller institutions; however, tension catalysts and interpretive processes appear similar to those in larger settings. Consistency in tension catalysts and interpretive processes across contexts allows us to begin to model theoretical principles of OR team communication, enabling the development of generic communication curricula applicable in a wide variety of institutional contexts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".