Stressful intensive care unit medical crises: How individual responses impact on team performance*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intensive care units (ICUs) are recognized as stressful environments. However, the conditions in which stressors may affect health professionals' performance and well-being and the conditions that potentially lead to impaired performance and staff psychological distress are not well understood. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine healthcare professionals' perceptions regarding the factors that lead to stress responses and performance impairments during ICU medical crises. DESIGN: A qualitative study in a university-affiliated ICU in Canada. METHODOLOGY: We conducted 32 individual semistructured interviews of ICU nurses, staff physicians, residents, and respiratory therapists in a university-affiliated hospital. The transcripts of the audiotaped interviews were analyzed using an inductive thematic methodology. RESULTS: Increased workload, high stakes, and heavy weight of responsibility were recognized as common stressors during ICU crises. However, a high level of individual and team resources available to face such demands was also reported. When the patient's condition was changing or deteriorating unpredictably or when the expected resources were unavailable, crises were assessed by some team members as threatening, leading to individual distress. Once manifested, this emotional distress was strongly contagious to other team members. The ensuing collective anxiety was perceived as disruptive for teamwork and deleterious for individual and collective performance. CONCLUSIONS: Individual distress reactions to ICU crises occurred in the presence of unexpectedly high demands unmatched by appropriate resources and were contagious among other team members. Given the high uncertainty surrounding many ICU medical crises, strategies aimed at preventing distress contagion among ICU health professionals may improve team performance and individual well-being.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".