Team and Leadership Performance: An Exploratory Mixed-Methods Analysis Using Interprofessional In Situ Simulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Learning Objective: To assess leader and team performance during interprofessional in situ simulation and identify characteristics of effective teams.Background: Patient care in the emergency department (ED) is dependent on highly effective interprofessional teams.Objectives: To assess leader and team performance during interprofessional in situ simulation and identify characteristics of effective teams.Methods: This mixed-methods study employed case study methodology. Eligible nurses, technicians, pharmacists, and PGY 2-4 emergency medicine residents at a tertiary academic ED participated in a 10-minute in situ simulation of a critically ill patient. Participants self-rated team performance using the Team Performance Observation Tool (TPOT) 2.0. Two raters independently reviewed simulation videos and rated performance using the TPOT 2.0, Team Emergency Assessment Measure (TEAM), and Ottawa Crisis Resource Management Global Rating Scale (Ottawa GRS). Following the simulations we conducted semi-structured interviews. Transcripts were coded by two coders and underwent thematic analysis.Results: 23 simulations took place between January-April 2021. Two raters’ scores were on the high end of the scales for the TPOT 2.0 (R1 4.90,SD=0.17;R2 4.53,SD=0.27), TEAM (R1 3.89,SD=0.19;R2 3.58,SD=0.39), and Ottawa GRS (R1 6.6,SD=.56;R2 6.2,SD=.54). Team leader attributes including year in residency, age, and gender did not correlate with performance scores. We identified 6 themes: leadership tone, interdependent energy, strategic staffing, optimal communication, simulation empowering team performance, and team entrustment. Participants acknowledged the effectiveness of in situ simulation in promoting entrustment in the clinical setting.Conclusions: The TPOT and TEAM were not discriminatory for high-performing ED teams. Our qualitative analysis revealed features such as entrustability, energy, and team size are important for effective team dynamics but are not completely captured on current tools. ED-specific assessments of interprofessional entrustment may be useful in optimizing readiness for the clinical setting.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".