4.5 Review

A systematic review of teamwork in the intensive care unit: What do we know about teamwork, team tasks, and improvement strategies?

Journal

JOURNAL OF CRITICAL CARE
Volume 29, Issue 6, Pages 908-914

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2014.05.025

Keywords

Teamwork; Intensive care unit; Patient safety; Group processes

Funding

  1. Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Palo Alto, CA [3186.01]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Teamwork is essential for ensuring the quality and safety of health care delivery in the intensive care unit (ICU). This article addresses what we know about teamwork, team tasks, and team improvement strategies in the ICU to identify the strengths and limitations of the existing knowledge base to guide future research. Methods: A keyword search of the PubMed database was conducted in February 2013. Keyword combinations focused on 3 areas: (1) teamwork, (2) the ICU, and (3) training/quality improvement interventions. All studies that investigated teamwork, team tasks, or team interventions within the ICU (ie, intradepartment) were selected for inclusion. Results: Teamwork has been investigated across an array of research contexts and task types. The terminology used to describe team factors varied considerably across studies. The most common team tasks involved strategy and goal formulation. Team training and structured protocols were the most widely implemented quality improvement strategies. Conclusions: Team research is burgeoning in the ICU, yet low-hanging fruit remains that can further advance the science of teams in the ICU if addressed. Constructs must be defined, and theoretical frameworks should be referenced. The functional characteristics of tasks should also be reported to help determine the extent to which study results might generalize to other contexts of work. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available