MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033672042 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0234416

Systematic review of the characteristics of brief team interventions to clarify roles and improve functioning in healthcare teams

2020· review· en· W3033672042 on OpenAlexafffund
Kelley Kilpatrick, Lysane Paquette, Mira Jabbour, Éric Tchouaket Nguemeleu, Nicolás Fernández, Grace Al Hakim, Véronique Landry, Nathalie Gauthier, Marie‐Dominique Beaulieu, Carl‐Ardy Dubois

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsCentre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Capitale-NationaleUniversité du Québec en OutaouaisUniversité de MontréalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-JeanMcGill UniversityCentres Intégré Universitaires de Santé et de Services SociauxCentre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de l'Est-de-l'Île-de-MontréalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDebriefingPsychological interventionCINAHLMEDLINEHealth careMedicineSession (web analytics)Systematic reviewPsychologyMedical educationNursingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: Describe brief (less than half a day) interventions aimed at improving healthcare team functioning. METHODS: A systematic review on brief team interventions aimed at role clarification and team functioning (PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42018088922). Experimental or quasi-experimental studies were included. Database searches included CINAHL, Medline, EMBASE, PUBMED, Cochrane, RCT Registry-1990 to April 2020 and grey literature. Articles were screened independently by teams of two reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed. Data from the retained articles were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer independently. A narrative synthesis was undertaken. RESULTS: Searches yielded 1928 unique records. Final sample contained twenty papers describing 19 studies, published between 2009 and 2020. Studies described brief training interventions conducted in acute care in-patient settings and included a total of 6338 participants. Participants' socio-demographic information was not routinely reported. Studies met between two to six of the eight risk of bias criteria. Interventions included simulations for technical skills, structured communications and speaking up for non-technical skills and debriefing. Debriefing sessions generally lasted between five to 10 minutes. Debriefing sessions reflected key content areas but it was not always possible to determine the influence of the debriefing session on participants' learning because of the limited information reported. DISCUSSION: Interest in short team interventions is recent. Single two-hour sessions appear to improve technical skills. Three to four 30- to 60-minute training sessions spread out over several weeks with structured facilitation and debriefing appear to improve non-technical skills. Monthly meetings appear to sustain change over time. CONCLUSION: Short team interventions show promise to improve team functioning. Effectiveness of interventions in primary care and the inclusion of patients and families needs to be examined. Primary care teams are structured differently than teams in acute care and they may have different priorities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.711

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations49
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicSimulation-Based Education in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207