MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4223967392 · doi:10.3389/fped.2022.845671

What Is Teamwork? A Mixed Methods Study on the Perception of Teamwork in a Specialized Neonatal Resuscitation Team

2022· article· en· W4223967392 on OpenAlexaff
Krystyna Ediger, Marghalara Rashid, Brenda Hiu Yan Law

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Pediatrics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTeamworkNeonatal resuscitationThematic analysisDebriefingTeam compositionMedicinePsychological safetyNursingFeelingPerceptionDelphi methodPsychologyQualitative researchMedical educationApplied psychologyResuscitationSocial psychologyEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Neonatal resuscitation is a team-based activity involving many decisions and tasks. Non-technical factors, such as teamwork, are increasingly recognized as impacting how well-neonatal resuscitation is performed, and therefore influencing infant outcomes. Prior studies on teamwork in neonatal resuscitation have focused on quantification of teamwork behaviors, or the effects of team training. This study aimed to explore healthcare providers' own perception of teamwork in this specialized environment to identify perceived barriers and facilitators to effective team functioning. Methods This single-center exploratory sequential mixed methods study used two phases. First, semi-structured interviews were conducted, and thematic analysis used to identify themes. Subsequently, interview data informed the development of quantitative surveys to explore selected themes in the wider team. Results From ten semi-structured interviews, seven themes were identified including: (1) Team Composition, (2) Effective Communication, (3) Team leadership, (4) Hierarchy, (5) Team Training, (6) Debriefing, and (7) Physical Environment. Perceived teamwork facilitators include role assignment, familiarity, team composition, talking out loud to maintain shared mental models, leadership, and team training. Perceived barriers included time pressures, ad hoc team, ineffective leadership, and space limitations. Selected themes (Communication, Speaking up, Hierarchy, and Leadership) were further explored via electronic surveys distributed via email to all members of the resuscitation team. There were 105 responses; a response rate of ~53%. All respondents agreed or strongly agreed that speaking up is important; however, not all felt comfortable doing so. Neonatal fellows (14%) and nurses (12%) were most likely to report not feeling comfortable speaking up. All respondents agreed that team communication is important to an effective resuscitation. Most respondents (91.5%) agreed that a hierarchy exists within the team; 54.3% believed that hierarchy positively contributes to effective resuscitation. All respondents agreed or strongly agreed that having a clearly defined leader is important in delivery room resuscitations. Ineffective leadership was the most cited reason for poor team communication. Conclusions In this mixed methods study of perceptions of teamwork within a specialized, multi-disciplinary neonatal resuscitation team, communication, hierarchy, and leadership were positively perceived and facilitates teamwork. However, even in this environment, some nurses and trainees expressed discomfort with speaking up.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.363
Threshold uncertainty score0.669

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations27
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PediatricsSame topicSimulation-Based Education in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207