No abstract

Background: A high variety of team interventions aims to improve team performance outcomes. In 2008, we conducted a systematic review to provide an overview of the scientific studies focused on these interventions. However, over the past decade, the literature on team interventions has rapidly evolved. An updated overview is therefore required, and it will focus on all possible team interventions without restrictions to a type of intervention, setting, or research design. Objectives: To review the literature from the past decade on interventions with the goal of improving team effectiveness within healthcare organizations and identify the "evidence base" levels of the research. Methods: Seven major databases were systematically searched for relevant articles published between 2008 and July 2018. Of the original search yield of 6025 studies, 297 studies met the inclusion criteria according to three independent authors and were subsequently included for analysis. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Scale was used to assess the level of empirical evidence. Results: Three types of interventions were distinguished: (1) Training, which is subdivided into training that is based on predefined principles (i.e. CRM: crew resource management and TeamSTEPPS: Team Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance and Patient Safety), on a specific method (i.e. simulation), or on general team training. (2) Tools covers tools that structure (i.e. SBAR: Situation, Background, Assessment, and Recommendation, (de)briefing checklists, and rounds), facilitate (through communication technology), or trigger (through monitoring and feedback) teamwork. (3) Organizational (re)design is about (re)designing structures to stimulate team processes and team functioning. (4) A programme is a combination of the previous types. The majority of studies evaluated a training focused on the (acute) hospital care setting. Most of the evaluated interventions focused on improving non-technical skills and provided evidence of improvements. Conclusion: Over the last decade, the number of studies on team interventions has increased exponentially. At the same time, research tends to focus on certain interventions, settings, and/or outcomes. Principle-based training (i.e. CRM and TeamSTEPPS) and simulation-based training seem to provide the greatest opportunities for reaching the improvement goals in team functioning.

Medical leadership is increasingly considered as crucial for improving the quality of care and the sustainability of healthcare. However, conceptual clarity is lacking in the literature and in practice. Therefore, a systematic review of the scientific literature was conducted to reveal the different conceptualizations of medical leadership in terms of definitions, roles and activities, and personal–and context-specific features. Eight databases were systematically searched for eligible studies, including empirical studies published in peer-reviewed journals that included physicians carrying out a manager or leadership role in a hospital setting. Finally, 34 articles were included and their findings were synthesized and analyzed narratively. Medical leadership is conceptualized in literature either as physicians with formal managerial roles or physicians who act as informal ‘leaders’ in daily practices. In both forms, medical leaders must carry out general management and leadership activities and acts to balance between management and medicine, because these physicians must accomplish both organizational and medical staff objectives. To perform effectively, credibility among medical peers appeared to be the most important factor, followed by a scattered list of fields of knowledge, skills and attitudes. Competing logics, role ambiguity and a lack of time and support were perceived as barriers. However, the extent to which physicians must master all elicited features, remains ambiguous. Furthermore, the extent to which medical leadership entails a shift or a reallocation of tasks that are at the core of medical professional work remains unclear. Future studies should implement stronger research designs in which more theory is used to study the effect of medical leadership on professional work, medical staff governance, and subsequently, the quality and efficiency of care.

Objective The first objective was to investigate if the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ) is appropriate to measure the safety attitude of caregivers in nursing and residential homes, and second, to compare safety attitude of these caregivers with available data of caregivers in other settings (ie, inpatients, intensive care unit (ICU) and ambulatory care). Methods Using a cross-sectional survey methodology, we obtained completed SAQ surveys from 521 caregivers (response rate of 53%) working in nine units in nine different nursing and residential homes in The Netherlands. Exploratory factor and Cronbach's alpha measures were used to analyse the psychometric properties of the SAQ. A correlation matrix was performed to study the relationship among the SAQ dimensions. A t test was performed to test significant differences between our sample and the benchmark settings. Results The factor analyses and calculated Cronbach's alphas (α=0.56-0.80) for this sample confirmed the robustness of the SAQ scales. There was a high positive correlation between teamwork climate, job satisfaction, perceptions of management, safety climate and working conditions (r=0.31 to 63), but stress recognition had a negative correlation with each of the other dimensions (r=−0.13 to −0.18). Overall, the scores from the nursing and residential homes differed significantly from the benchmark settings. Conclusions The findings in this study confirmed that the SAQ could also be used in the nursing and residential homes setting. However, stress recognition in nursing and residential homes setting does not seem to be one of the dimensions of the safety attitude construct. Furthermore, Dutch nursing and residential homes have significantly higher scores on most dimensions of the SAQ compared with US inpatient units and comparable scores to ICUs (Dutch and US) and ambulatory services.