Cognitive Aids for Role Definition (CARD) to improve interprofessional team crisis resource management: An exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to assess the perceived value of the Cognitive Aids for Role Definition (CARD) protocol for simulated intraoperative cardiac arrests. Sixteen interprofessional operating room teams completed three consecutive simulated intraoperative cardiac arrest scenarios: current standard, no CARD; CARD, no CARD teaching; and CARD, didactic teaching. Each team participated in a focus group interview immediately following the third scenario; data were transcribed verbatim and qualitatively analysed. After 6 months, participants formed eight new teams randomised to two groups (CARD or no CARD) and completed a retention intraoperative cardiac arrest simulation scenario. All simulation sessions were video recorded and expert raters assessed team performance. Qualitative analysis of the 16 focus group interviews revealed 3 thematic dimensions: role definition in crisis management; logistical issues; and the "real life" applicability of CARD. Members of the interprofessional team perceived CARD very positively. Exploratory quantitative analysis found no significant differences in team performance with or without CARD (p > 0.05). In conclusion, qualitative data suggest that the CARD protocol clarifies roles and team coordination during interprofessional crisis management and has the potential to improve the team performance. The concept of a self-organising team with defined roles is promising for patient safety.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".