Improving Ad Hoc Medical Team Performance with an Innovative “I START-END” Communication Tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Irene McGhee,1 Jordan Tarshis,1 Susan DeSousa2 1Department of Anesthesiology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; 2Sunnybrook Canadian Simulation Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaCorrespondence: Irene McGhee, Email irene.mcghee@utoronto.caPurpose: To study the effect of a communication tool entitled: “I START-END” (I-Identify; S-Story; T-Task; A-Accomplish/Adjust; R-Resources; T-Timely Updates; E-Exit; N-Next; D-Document and Debrief) in simulated urgent scenarios in non-operating room settings (referred to as “Ad Hoc”) with anesthesia residents. The “I START-END” tool was created by incorporating Crisis Resource Management (CRM) principles into a practical and user-friendly format.Methods: This was a mixed methods pre/post observational study with 47 anesthesia resident volunteers participating from July 2014 to June 2016. Each resident served as their own control, and participated in three simulated Ad Hoc scenarios. The first simulation served as a baseline. The second simulation occurred 1– 2 weeks after I START-END training. The third simulation occurred 3– 6 months later. Simulation performance was videotaped and reviewed by trained experts using technical skill checklists and Anesthesia Non-Technical Skills (ANTS) score. Residents filled out questionnaires, pre-simulation, 1– 2 weeks after I START-END training and 3– 6 months later. Concurrently, resident performance at actual Code Blue events was scored by trained observers using the Mayo High Performance Teamwork Scale.Results: 80– 90% of residents stated the tool provided an organized approach to Ad Hoc scenarios – specifically, information helpful to care of the patient was obtained more readily and better resource planning occurred as communication with the team improved. Residents stated they would continue to use the tool and apply it to other clinical settings. Resident video performance scores of technical skills showed significant improvement at the “late” session (3– 6 months post exposure to the I START-END). ANTS scores were satisfactory and remained unchanged throughout. There was no difference between residents with and without I START-END training as measured by the Mayo High Performance Teamwork Scale, however, debriefing at Code Blues occurred twice as often when residents had I START-END training.Conclusion: Non-operating room settings are fraught with unfamiliarity that create many challenges. The I START-END tool operationalizes key CRM elements. The tool was well received by residents; it enabled them to speak up more readily, obtain vital information and continually update each other by anticipating, planning, and debriefing in an organized and collaborative way.Keywords: “Ad Hoc” teams, team building, I START-END tool, non-operating room anesthesia, crisis resource management, team communication
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".