| Literature DB >> 25115403 |
Ya-Chi Hsu, Jih-Shuin Jerng, Ching-Wen Chang, Li-Chin Chen, Ming-Yuan Hsieh, Szu-Fen Huang, Yueh-Ping Liu, Kuan-Yu Hung1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The process involved in organ procurement and transplantation is very complex that requires multidisciplinary coordination and teamwork. To prevent error during the processes, teamwork education and training might play an important role. We wished to evaluate the efficacy of implementing a Team Resource Management (TRM) program on patient safety and the behaviors of the team members involving in the process.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25115403 PMCID: PMC4136399 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2482-14-51
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Surg ISSN: 1471-2482 Impact factor: 2.102
Interventions on teamwork in organ procurement and transplantation
| • Lecture domains: leadership, communication, situation awareness, mutual support | • Video production of organ procurement and transplantation case presentation |
| • Sub-group discussion and concept formation of the group members | • Video demonstration and teaching of common TRM skills |
| • Case presentations by sub-groups | |
| • Focused group interviews | • Periodic case reviews and meeting documentation |
| • TRM common skills demonstration by instructors | • Document review and feedback for assessment of TRM skill integration |
| • In-class evaluation of participants’ TRM skills by instructors | • Outcome measurement: skills usage and incidents related to teamwork |
Characteristics of the participants (n = 34) for TRM training course
| Discipline | |
| Surgeon | 12 (35.3) |
| Anesthesiologist | 3 (8.8) |
| Nurses | 15 (44.0) |
| Laboratory staff | 4 (11.8) |
| Working unit | |
| Operating room | 23 (67.7) |
| Organ procurement | 6 (17.7) |
| Laboratory | 5 (14.7) |
| Professional experience | |
| 3 years or less | 4 (11.8) |
| 4 - 10 years | 6 (17.7) |
| 11 - 19 years | 10 (29.4) |
| 20 years or more | 14 (41.2) |
Comparison of teamwork perception before and after the TRM intervention
| I | Teamwork framework | 5.69 ± 0.90 | 5.82 ± 0.85 | 0.56 |
| II | Leadership | 5.52 ± 1.11 | 5.21 ± 1.11 | 0.26 |
| III | Situation awareness | 5.19 ± 1.01 | 5.25 ± 0.95 | 0.79 |
| IV | Communication | 5.83 ± 0.83 | 5.65 ± 0.96 | 0.41 |
| V | Mutual support | 5.05 ± 0.96 | 5.16 ± 1.18 | 0.68 |
Figure 1Changes of overall scores on perception of teamwork culture in the three groups of team members participating the TRM program (p > 0.05 in comparing changes in all three groups).
Changes of the perception scores after the intervention across the dimensions in different team groups
| Teamwork Framework | | |
| OPR Team | 5.61 ± 0.87 | 5.86 ± 0.95 |
| Procurement Team | 5.62 ± 1.21 | 5.18 ± 0.24 |
| Laboratory Team | 6.14 ± 0.59 | 5.88 ± 0.45 |
| Leadership | | |
| OPR Team | 5.47 ± 1.12 | 5.31 ± 1.18 |
| Procurement Team | 5.40 ± 1.34 | 4.06 ± 1.06 |
| Laboratory Team | 5.90 ± 0.85 | 5.35 ± 0.28 |
| Situation Monitoring | | |
| OPR Team | 5.21 ± 0.95 | 5.41 ± 0.90 |
| Procurement Team | 5.06 ± 1.36 | 3.73 ± 0.79 |
| Laboratory Team | 5.24 ± 1.05 | 5.38 ± 0.47 |
| Communication | | |
| OPR Team | 5.83 ± 0.88 | 5.80 ± 0.90 |
| Procurement Team | 5.83 ± 0.83 | 4.00 ± 0.44 |
| Laboratory Team | 5.82 ± 0.74 | 4.97 ± 0.53 |
| Mutual Support | | |
| OPR Team | 5.18 ± 0.99 | 5.24 ± 1.45 |
| Procurement Team | 5.03 ± 0.88 | 4.56 ± 0.69 |
| Laboratory Team | 4.50 ± 0.84 | 4.97 ± 0.79 |
Comparison of perception ratings on teamwork concept among team members with different durations of working experience
| 3 or less | 4.97 ± 0.44 | 0.046 | 5.38 ± 1.27 | 0.59 |
| 4 - 10 | 5.02 ± 0.88 | 5.24 ± 0.89 | | |
| 11 - 19 | 5.47 ± 0.63 | 5.35 ± 0.71 | | |
| 20 or more | 5.77 ± 0.52 | 5.67 ± 0.32 | ||
*ANOVA.
Summary of specific team behaviors related to teamwork skills documented from the case review and discussion for procurement and transplantation cases
| Leadership | |
| Briefing | The procurement leader physicians called the procurement coordinators and laboratory staff for their readiness before beginning the actual procurement process. |
| Huddle | The procurement leader physician confirmed the goal of action and planned the expected process with the members. |
| Debriefing | The procurement team discussed after completion of the procedure, stressing on unexpected conditions. |
| Situation Monitoring | |
| Situation monitoring | Staff members were trained to upload updated patient clinical data and laboratory results into the platform. |
| Situation awareness | Institutional patient data platform to update the progress during procurement and transplantation. This improved the situation awareness of the on-duty team members. |
| Shared mental model | Procurement staff, laboratory staff and procurement leaders updated for the process during organ donation. |
| Mutual Support | |
| “I’M SAFE” | Monitor the working hours to avoid working for more than 12 hours for each shift. |
| Communication | |
| Hand off (“ISBAR”) | Procurement member communicated each other with a structured form (ISBAR), which was later incorporated into the case records. |
| Call-out | Laboratory member called team members to confirm the information been received by the whole team. |
| | Critical test result (i.e., positive HIV) confirmed informed to all team members until the whole process stopped. |
| Time-out | Structured time-out checklist used during organ donation and transplantation, stressed on correct laboratory results. |