More Than Talking About the Weekend: Content of Case‐Irrelevant Communication Within the OR Team

Widmer, Lukas Werner; Keller, Sandra; Tschan, Franziska; Semmer, Norbert K.; Holzer, Eliane; Candinas, Daniel; Beldi, Guido

doi:10.1007/s00268-017-4442-4

Cited by 10 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Research on gossip in group and team contexts is scattered throughout several disciplines, including anthropology (Gluckman, 1963), social and evolutionary psychology (Dunbar, 2004;Feinberg et al, 2014;Kniffin & Wilson, 2005), health sciences (Widmer et al, 2018), and, more recently, organizational psychology (Beersma & Van Kleef, 2012;Jeuken et al, 2015). Yet a common thread throughout is an emphasis on the function of gossip as a communication tool.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

More than idle talk: Examining the effects of positive and negative team gossip

Spoelma

Hetrick

2021

J Organ Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gossip is a behavior that has been traditionally viewed as harmful in organizations.However, a more balanced perspective has emerged in recent years that suggests gossip can have important benefits. We propose that one way to uncover potential benefits of gossip in teams is to focus on the valence (positive or negative nature) of the gossip. Drawing on expectancy theory, we propose that team gossip indirectly influences team performance through social loafing because it plays a key role in shaping beliefs about effort in team contexts-effects determined by team gossip valence. We hypothesize that positive team gossip decreases social loafing, whereas negative team gossip increases it. In turn, we expect that through social loafing, positive team gossip has a positive indirect effect on team performance, whereas negative team gossip has a negative indirect effect. We test these predictions in a sample of 63 self-managing teams. We find support for our predictions regarding positive team gossip but not regarding negative team gossip. Our findings point to the potential benefits of gossip and highlight why efforts to abolish gossip in organizations may impair team effort and performance.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

More than idle talk: Examining the effects of positive and negative team gossip

Spoelma

Hetrick

2021

J Organ Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second, team members can effectively adjust to the need for concentration, and case‐irrelevant communication is not always disruptive [21]. However, in this study only case‐irrelevant communication was observed within the scrub team from incision to closure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

“…Case-irrelevant verbal communication is not always disruptive, and some teams handled it well, but most did not, mainly due to a lack of awareness of the needs of other sub-teams. This lack of awareness is fed by Second, team members can effectively adjust to the need for concentration, and case-irrelevant communication is not always disruptive[21]. However, in this study only case-irrelevant communication was observed within the scrub team from incision to closure.…”

mentioning

confidence: 66%

An observational study of distractions in the operating theatre

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Several studies have reported on the negative impact of interruptions and distractions on anaesthetic, surgical and team performance in the operating theatre. This study aimed to gain a deeper understanding of these events and why they remain part of everyday clinical practice. We used a mixed methods observational study design. We scored each distractor and interruption according to an established scheme during induction of anaesthesia and the surgical procedure for 58 general surgical cases requiring general anaesthesia. We made field notes of observations, small conversations and meetings. We observed 64 members of staff for 148 hours and recorded 4594 events, giving a mean (SD) event rate of 32.8 (16.3) h‐1. The most frequent events observed during induction of anaesthesia were door movements, which accounted for 869 (63%) events, giving a mean (SD) event rate of 28.1 (14.5) h‐1. These, however, had little impact. The most common events observed during surgery were case‐irrelevant verbal communication and smartphone usage, which accounted for 1020 (32%) events, giving a mean (SD) event rate of 9.0 (4.2) h‐1. These occurred mostly in periods of low work‐load in a sub‐team. Participants ranged from experiencing these events as severe disruption through to a welcome distraction that served to keep healthcare professionals active during low work‐load, as well as reinforcing the social connections between colleagues. Mostly, team members showed no awareness of the need for silence among other sub‐teams and did not vocalise the need for silence to others. Case‐irrelevant verbal communication and smartphone usage may serve a physical and psychological need. The extent to which healthcare professionals may feel disrupted depends on the situation and context. When a team member was disrupted, a resilient team response often lacked. Reducing disruptive social activity might be a powerful strategy to develop a habit of cross‐monitoring and mutual help across surgical and anaesthetic sub‐teams. Further research is needed on how to bridge cultural borders and develop resilient interprofessional behaviours.

show abstract

“…18 Researchers have found that team members can and do hold each other accountable when they regulate case-irrelevant communication according to the amount of concentration that other team members require at a specific time. 19 When identifying the critical phases of a surgical procedure, perioperative leaders and staff members should remember that important tasks occur during each phase of care and develop a comprehensive strategy that includes awareness of and respect for all team members and a focus on patient safety. Results of an observational study of 110 open abdominal procedures in a European hospital found that second surgeons (eg, residents) may have greater difficulty concentrating and be more easily distracted when there is additional noise occurring (eg, nonessential conversations, loud music) during the main phase of a surgical procedure, and anesthesia professionals may have greater difficulty concentrating when there is additional noise occurring during the closing phase of a procedure.…”

Section: Strategies To Considermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…During these critical phases, team members should minimize distractions and noise, including nonessential communication, so they can concentrate to complete the task safely 18 . Researchers have found that team members can and do hold each other accountable when they regulate case‐irrelevant communication according to the amount of concentration that other team members require at a specific time 19 …”

Section: Strategies To Considermentioning

confidence: 99%