Assessing Surgical Teamwork Competencies During Moments of Uncertainty Using OR Black Box
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teamwork is an essential aspect to maintaining high-quality healthcare. This is especially true during times of uncertainty, when collaborative problem solving is necessary for clinical teams to adapt and deliver safe and effective care. We conducted a prospective observational study using audio/visual analysis captured by OR Black Box. Human factors experts transcribed and coded the videos using an evidence-based teamwork framework, specific to healthcare. We identified teamwork competencies that were either present or absent during moments of uncertainty in the operating room. Four main team roles (nurses, anesthesiologists, surgeons and trainees) were studied. We identified 3539 instances of teamwork, during 180 hours of surgical observation, and categorized them into 7 competencies. Team leadership was expressed significantly more often by surgeons compared to other team members whereas backup behaviour was expressed significantly more by nurses. Understanding how each team role uniquely contributes to teamwork can help develop specific and actionable teamwork interventions, which could ultimately lead to increased safety in the OR.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".