The dissenting opinion: can simulation-based multi-professional training reduce ‘groupthink’?

Snelgrove, Huon; Gosling, Nicholas; McAnulty, Greg

doi:10.1136/pgmj.2010.109298

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Group processes are inherent to all social groups and can generate biases compromising decision‐making and patient safety (Mannion & Thompson, 2014). Social standards designed to prevent conflicts may prevent members of the team from expressing an independent opinion (Kane, 1975) and a ‘groupthink’ may generate an insensitivity to new ideas (Snelgrove et al, 2011). The ‘group polarization’ could potentially lead to group decisions that are more extreme than the initial individual positions (Mannion & Thompson, 2014; Unsworth et al, 1997).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Training makes it possible to improve one's knowledge of oneself and others and to create a dynamic for change. Training in interprofessional decision‐making was a key‐element within 15 of the selected sources (Banchet, 2011; Castillo‐Parra et al, 2017; Firn et al, 2020; Goldman et al, 2015; Greenfield et al, 2010; Hagoel et al, 2011; Harris et al, 2021; Keshmiri et al, 2020; Machin et al, 2019; Maxson et al, 2011; Nathan et al, 2021; Neville et al, 2013; Shiao et al, 2019; Siegle et al, 2018; Snelgrove et al, 2011). Learning begins with a detailed examination of the personal and professional values of each individual (Hagoel et al, 2011; Harris et al, 2021; Oddi & Cassidy, 1998).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An understanding of the skills and knowledge of the other professionals makes it possible to appreciate the originality of their approach (Goldman et al, 2015; Neville et al, 2013), their challenges (Colombo et al, 2003; Maxson et al, 2011) and to learn to see the situation from the standpoint of another professional culture (Hagoel et al, 2011). Several training courses for teams were based on simulation (Harris et al, 2021; Shiao et al, 2019) and have made it possible to break out of the habitual hierarchical framework (Snelgrove et al, 2011), to initiate an improvement in professional relationships and communication and to improve professional satisfaction with the decision‐making process (Maxson et al, 2011). Contributing to the development of the scenario improved the effectiveness of the training (Shiao et al, 2019).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Interprofessional clinical decision‐making process in health: A scoping review

Bouchez,

Cagnon,

Hamouche

et al. 2023

Journal of Advanced Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimsTo describe the key elements of the interprofessional decision‐making process in health, based on published scientific studies. To describe the authors, reviews and subject matter of those publications.DesignScoping review of the literature.Data SourcesMEDLINE, APA Psycinfo OpenGrey, Lissa and Cochrane databases were searched in December 2019 and January 2023.Review MethodsReferences were considered eligible if they (i) were written in French or English, (ii) concerned health, (iii) studied a clinical decision‐making process, (iv) were performed in an interprofessional context. ‘PRISMA‐scoping review’ guidelines were respected. The eligible studies were analysed and classified by an inductive approachResultsWe identified 1429 sources of information, 145 of which were retained for the analysis. Based on these studies, we identified five key elements of interprofessional decision‐making in health. The process was found to be influenced by group dynamics, the available information and consideration of the unique characteristics of the patient. An organizational framework and specific training favoured improvements in the process.ConclusionDecision‐making can be based on a willingness of the healthcare organization to promote models based on more shared leadership and to work on professional roles and values. It also requires healthcare professionals trained in the entire continuum of collaborative practices, to meet the unique needs of each patient. Finally, it appears essential to favour the sharing of multiple sources of accessible and structured information. Tools for knowledge formalization should help to optimize interprofessional decision‐making in health.ImpactThe quality of a team decision‐making is critical to the quality of care. Interprofessional decision‐making can be structured and improved through different levels of action. These improvements could benefit to patients and healthcare professionals in every settings of care involving care collaboration.Impact StatementInterprofessional decision‐making in health is an essential lever of quality of care, especially for the most complex patients which are a contemporary challenge. This scoping review article offers a synthesis of a large corpus of data published to date about the interprofessional clinical decision‐making process in healthcare. It has the potential to provide a global vision, practical data and a list of references to facilitate the work of healthcare teams, organizations and teachers ready to initiate a change.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Interprofessional clinical decision‐making process in health: A scoping review

Bouchez,

Cagnon,

Hamouche

et al. 2023

Journal of Advanced Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…By shifting the focus from individual cognition to distributed cognition, scientists in the clinical setting have begun to develop multiperson simulation techniques to enhance group learning and performance and reduce groupthink, by focusing on team and system failures rather than individual errors (Snelgrove et al 2011). By shifting the focus from individual cognition to distributed cognition, scientists in the clinical setting have begun to develop multiperson simulation techniques to enhance group learning and performance and reduce groupthink, by focusing on team and system failures rather than individual errors (Snelgrove et al 2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emotion in Group Decision and Negotiation

2015

Advances in Group Decision and Negotiation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The book series, Advances in Group Decision and Negotiation-as an extension of the journal, Group Decision and Negotiation-is motivated by unifying approaches to group decision and negotiation processes. These processes are purposeful, adaptive, and complex-cybernetic and self-organizing-and involve relation and coordination in multiplayer, multicriteria, ill-structured, evolving dynamic problems in which players (agents) both cooperate and conflict. These processes are purposeful complex adaptive systems.Group decision and negotiation involves the whole process or flow of activities relevant to group decision and negotiation-such as communication and information sharing, problem definition (representation) and evolution, alternative generation, social-emotional interaction, coordination, leadership, and the resulting action choice.Areas of application include intra-organizational coordination (as in local/global strategy, operations management and integrated design, production, finance, marketing, and distribution-e.g., as for new products), computer-supported collaborative work, labor-management negotiation, inter-organizational negotiation (business, government, and nonprofits), electronic negotiation and commerce, mobile technology, culture and negotiation, inter-cultural and international relations and negotiation, globalization, terrorism, and environmental negotiation.More information about this series at

show abstract

Emotions in Interaction: Toward a Supraindividual Study of Empathy

Christov-Moore¹,

Iacoboni²

2015

Emotion in Group Decision and Negotiation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The dissenting opinion: can simulation-based multi-professional training reduce ‘groupthink’?

Cited by 4 publications

References 22 publications

Interprofessional clinical decision‐making process in health: A scoping review

Interprofessional clinical decision‐making process in health: A scoping review

Emotion in Group Decision and Negotiation

Emotions in Interaction: Toward a Supraindividual Study of Empathy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About