Teamwork: hard facts, soft skills. 189Teamwork: hard facts, soft skills.JENNIFER WELLER, MD, MCLINED, MBBS, FANZCA, FRCASpecialist Anaesthetist <strong>and</strong> Head of Centre for Medical <strong>and</strong> Health Sciences Education, Faculty of Medical <strong>and</strong>Health Sciences, University of Auckl<strong>and</strong>, <strong>New</strong> Zeal<strong>and</strong>A/ Prof Weller is an anaesthetist <strong>and</strong> head of the Centre for Medical <strong>and</strong> Health Sciences Education at the Universityof Auckl<strong>and</strong>. Her research interests include simulation-based learning, patient safety <strong>and</strong> medical error, teamwork<strong>and</strong> interprofessional collaboration, <strong>and</strong> performance assessment.INTRODUCTION“A team refers to two or more individuals each with specific roles, working toward a common goal, <strong>and</strong> with concreteboundaries. Teams work on complex tasks requiring dynamic exchange of resources (e.g. information), coordinationof effort <strong>and</strong> adaptation to changing situational factors. Teamwork is the vehicle through which such coordinationoccurs. It is defined in terms of the behaviours (e.g. closed loop communication) cognitions (e.g. shared mentalmodels) <strong>and</strong> attitudes (e.g. collective efficacy, trust) that combine to make adaptive interdependent performancepossible.” 1The days of the heroic, individualist doctor are over. Organisational <strong>and</strong> structural changes in the way patientsare cared for in hospital, <strong>and</strong> increasingly complex interventions means no one person takes responsibility for thetotal care of a patient. The patient relies on a team of health professionals – hospital specialists, nurses, allied healthprofessionals – to deliver their care. There is overwhelming evidence that failures of teamwork result in medicalerrors. Medical error has been called the new epidemic, reportedly the biggest killer next to cancer <strong>and</strong> heartdisease. 2 Rather than focussing only on technical proficiency, new knowledge <strong>and</strong> increasingly sophisticatedequipment <strong>and</strong> interventions, the medical profession may need to take a look at some hard facts about teamwork.This chapter will consider some evidence on teamwork <strong>and</strong> patient safety, present empirical data on how effectiveteams operate <strong>and</strong> describe some practical approaches to improve teamwork <strong>and</strong> patient safety in the operatingtheatre.Over the last decade there have been increasingly pressing calls from patient safety bodies, health commissioners<strong>and</strong> government agencies for improved collaboration between health professionals. Consumers <strong>and</strong> providers havethe expectation that the health professionals responsible for patient care will collaborate with each other to deliverthe most effective <strong>and</strong> efficient service. 3,4 In the United States, the Institute of Medicine published a recommendationfor interdisciplinary training of medical teams as one of their key strategies for reducing medical errors. 5 Education<strong>and</strong> training bodies, including the <strong>Australian</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>New</strong> Zeal<strong>and</strong> College of Anaesthetists, have responded to theproblem by explicitly including communication <strong>and</strong> collaboration as key domains of medical education <strong>and</strong> clinicalpractice. 6,7National level projects have been launched to improve teamwork. The Agency for Healthcare Research <strong>and</strong>Quality launched TeamSTEPPS, 8 a national programme to improve communication <strong>and</strong> teamwork skills amonghealth care professionals (http://teamstepps.ahrq.gov/abouttoolsmaterials.htm ). The NHS launched “The ProductiveOperating Room” (TPOR) project to improve quality <strong>and</strong> deliver care more efficiently to surgical patients (http://www.institute.nhs.uk/quality_<strong>and</strong>_value/productivity_series/the_productive_operating_theatre.html ).One module in this programme addresses teamwork. The TPOR programme has been adopted in a number of<strong>New</strong> Zeal<strong>and</strong> district health boards, funded by the NZ Ministry of Health. The WHO Surgical Safety Checklist (http://www.who.int/patientsafety/safesurgery/tools_resources/SSSL_Checklist_finalJ un08.pdf), now widely adoptedinternationally by many hospitals, includes elements to promote information sharing <strong>and</strong> collaboration between theoperating room team.CHALLENGES FOR OPERATING ROOM TEAMSAnaesthetists work in a fast-paced, high pressure environment where errors can have immediate <strong>and</strong> devastatingconsequences for patients. Of all medical environments, the operating room requires optimum <strong>and</strong> finely tunedcommunication <strong>and</strong> collaboration between members of the team to avoid error <strong>and</strong> optimise care. And yet thereare a number of factors in the operating theatre that challenge effective teamwork: teams are “unstable”; there isan established culture of parallel teams; <strong>and</strong> there is a strong hierarchical structure.The membership of the operating room team is unstable, with constantly changing membership on any day,<strong>and</strong> over the course of the day. Surgeons, nurses <strong>and</strong> anaesthetic staff may be uncertain about the roles <strong>and</strong>capabilities of others. Much of the literature on teams is derived from stable teams, but a fundamental requirementin the operating theatre will be adaptability in the face of changing team membership.While the staff working together on a surgical list on any one day may be expected to work as a single operatingroom team, they may not conceive of themselves as a team, but rather a collection of different teams based ontheir different professional identities. The operating room maintains the appearance of three parallel teams: thesurgical team; the nursing team; <strong>and</strong> the anaesthetic team. These three groups have their own established professionalidentities, <strong>and</strong> have biases <strong>and</strong> stereotypes affecting their perceptions of <strong>and</strong> interactions with members of othergroups. These differences are established in basic medical education. With little evidence of combined educationalevents, specialist training programmes <strong>and</strong> ongoing continuing professional development can further entrenchprofessional isolation. Even initiatives in teamwork have, surprisingly, often remained uni-disciplinary.While collaboration between anaesthetists <strong>and</strong> their anaesthetic assistants may have improved over the last decade
190 <strong>Australasian</strong> <strong>Anaesthesia</strong> <strong>2011</strong>Teamwork: hard facts, soft skills. 191with attendance on courses such as the Effective Management of Anaesthetic Crises (EMAC), 9 it’s unclear theextent to which this has impacted on the functioning of the operating room team as a whole. No surgeons areinvolved in EMAC. A crisis management course devised for surgeons from Imperial College, London, has an actorplaying the role of the anaesthetist, with a cardboard cut-out of an anaesthetic machine (personal communication).Stereotypical representation of other professional groups may be inaccurate or even derogatory <strong>and</strong> can potentiallybe reinforced during single profession team training, for example through consistently simulating negative aspectsof other professions, or through language permitted in single profession discussions (e.g. unhelpful, obstructive,idle). We work in multidisciplinary teams <strong>and</strong> some of the bigger challenges in teamwork are likely to come frominteractions across these disciplines. Underst<strong>and</strong>ing the capabilities of other professional groups, how they process<strong>and</strong> prioritise information, <strong>and</strong> the information they need to know to do their job, may be limited in members of theoperating room team. Learning how to negotiate these differences would seem a fundamental requirement fordeveloping teamwork.In order for teams to share information, team leaders need to be open to suggestion. Where a power gradientinhibits team members for speaking up, mistakes will go unchallenged. Bleakely 10 describes the need for democracyin healthcare teams, where all members have a voice. He further describes the “monologic” leader, who does allthe talking <strong>and</strong> doesn’t invite input. This undemocratic culture provides a further challenge for developing effectiveteams. By way of contrast, the “dialogic” leader, engages in open conversations <strong>and</strong> encourages suggestions fromthe team members.HARD FACTSMedical error is the third biggest killer, after cancer <strong>and</strong> heart disease, in North America. 2 Between 6 <strong>and</strong> 16% ofall hospital admissions are associated with an adverse event, resulting in disability or longer hospital stay. 11-13 It’sbecoming clear that the majority of these medical errors <strong>and</strong> adverse events are not due to failures in training,medical knowledge or technical proficiency, but to the so-called non-technical factors. Failures in teamwork <strong>and</strong>communication make a substantial contribution. 14-20 Miscommunication both within teams <strong>and</strong> across teams ismost acute in surgical settings. 21Observational studies in the operating room have identified communication problems. Lingard et al 22 classifiedover 25% of all communications between members of the operating room team as failures, due to poor timing,wrong or incomplete content, or failure to resolve issues. Many of these were observed to result in deleteriouseffects on the efficiency, use of resources <strong>and</strong> led to delays, procedural errors or tension between team members.BETTER TEAMS HAVE BETTER RESULTSIn a meta-analysis of studies of 2650 non-clinical teams, nearly 20% of the differences in team processes <strong>and</strong>outcomes could be accounted for by prior participation of team members in team training. 23 This suggests teamtraining can lead to a change in team behaviour. These improved processes <strong>and</strong> outcomes also applied to teamswho did or did not regularly work together. A review of published studies on leadership <strong>and</strong> healthcare teamssupports the proposal that well functioning teams with good leadership can improve patient safety. 24 In a metaanalysisof controlled trials on post-discharge non-pharmacological interventions in patients with heart failure,involving a multidisciplinary team was associated with reduced rates of re-hospitalisation <strong>and</strong> mortality. 25 There issome evidence that medical team training initiatives exhibit similar effects to those observed in aviation <strong>and</strong> laboratoryteams. 26 While there are unique factors affecting operating room teams, it seems likely that there will be somesimilarities in the way teams function across different contexts. Indeed in a survey of participants of a simulationbasedcourse in crisis management, anaesthetists reported very specifically the changes they’d made to theirpractice, <strong>and</strong> the way they managed their team in critical clinical events following the training. 27The WHO Surgical Safety Checklist has, as one of its components, an intention to improve the way the operatingroom staff functions as a team, for example, introduction of team members <strong>and</strong> sharing of information aboutsignificant patient <strong>and</strong> case issues. Reports of substantial reductions in post-operative morbidity <strong>and</strong> mortality arecompelling. 23SOFT SKILLSHowever, teams do not just happen. As in other contexts, collecting a group of highly skilled health practitionerstogether in the operating theatre does not ensure optimal outcomes for every patient. The undeniable evidence onsuboptimal teamwork, <strong>and</strong> resultant bad outcomes for patients, obliges us to look at some of the soft, non-technicalskills.Based on an extensive review <strong>and</strong> analysis of the published studies on teamwork across different contexts,Salas 29 identified a number of dimensions that were requirements for a well-functioning team. These are: teamleadership; mutual performance monitoring; backup behaviour; adaptability; <strong>and</strong> team orientation. Salas proposeda number of underlying conditions that were requirements for teams to be achieve these capabilities: mutual trust;shared mental models; <strong>and</strong> closed loop communication (Table 1).Table 1. Dimensions required for a well-functioning team [from Salas 29 ]Teamwork Definition Behavioural markersTeam leadershipMutual performancemonitoringBackup behaviourAdaptabilityTeam orientationShared mental modelsMutual trustClosed-loopcommunicationAbility to direct <strong>and</strong> coordinate theactivities of the other team members,assess team performance, assign tasks,develop team knowledge, skills <strong>and</strong>abilities, motivate team members, plan<strong>and</strong> organise, <strong>and</strong> establish a positiveatmosphere.Ability to develop commonunderst<strong>and</strong>ing of the team environment<strong>and</strong> apply appropriate strategies toaccurately monitor teammateperformance.Ability to anticipate other team members’needs through accurate knowledgeabout their responsibilities. This includesthe ability to shift workload amongmembers to achieve balance duringperiods of high workload or pressure.Ability to adjust strategies based oninformation gathered from theenvironment including how the team ismanaging the situation. Altering a courseof action or team member task allocationin response to changing conditions(internal or external).Propensity to take other’s behaviour intoaccount during group interactions <strong>and</strong>the belief in the importance of the team’sgoal over the individual members’ goal.An organising knowledge structure ofthe relationships among the tasks theteam is engaged in <strong>and</strong> how the teammembers will interact.The shared belief that team memberswill perform their roles <strong>and</strong> protect theinterests of their teammates.The exchange of information betweena sender <strong>and</strong> a receiver irrespective ofthe medium.Facilitate team problem solving.Provide performance expectations<strong>and</strong> acceptable interaction patterns.Coordinate individual team membercontributions.Seek <strong>and</strong> evaluate information thataffects team functioning.Clarify team member roles.Engage in preparatory meetings (briefs)<strong>and</strong> feedback sessions (debriefs) withthe team.Identify mistakes <strong>and</strong> lapses in otherteam members’ actions.Provide feedback regarding teammembers’ actions to facilitate selfcorrection.Recognise a workload distributionproblem in their team.Shifting of work responsibilities tounderutilised team members.Completion of tasks by other teammembers.Identify cues that change has occurred,assign meaning to that change <strong>and</strong>develop a new plan to deal with thechange.Identify opportunities for improvement orinnovation for habitual or routinepractices.Remain vigilant to changes in the internal<strong>and</strong> external environment of the team.Taking into account alternative solutionsprovided by teammates <strong>and</strong> appraisingthat input to determine what is mostcorrect.Increased task involvement, informationsharing, strategising <strong>and</strong> participatorygoal setting.Anticipating <strong>and</strong> predicting each other’sneeds.Identifying changes in the team, tasks,or teammates <strong>and</strong> implicitly adjustingstrategies as needed.Information sharing.Willingness to admit mistakes <strong>and</strong>accept feedback.Following up with team members toensure message was received.Acknowledge that a message wasreceived.Clarifying with the sender of the messagethat the message received is the same asthe intended message.