You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Review
Teams, tribes and patient safety: overcoming barriers to effective teamwork in healthcare
Free
  1. Jennifer Weller,
  2. Matt Boyd,
  3. David Cumin
  1. Centre for Medical and Health Sciences Education, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, Grafton Campus, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
  1. Correspondence to Associate Professor Jennifer Weller, Centre for Medical and Health Sciences Education, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, Grafton Campus, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand; j.weller{at}auckland.ac.nz

Abstract

Modern healthcare is delivered by multidisciplinary, distributed healthcare teams who rely on effective teamwork and communication to ensure effective and safe patient care. However, we know that there is an unacceptable rate of unintended patient harm, and much of this is attributed to failures in communication between health professionals. The extensive literature on teams has identified shared mental models, mutual respect and trust and closed-loop communication as the underpinning conditions required for effective teams. However, a number of challenges exist in the healthcare environment. We explore these in a framework of educational, psychological and organisational challenges to the development of effective healthcare teams. Educational interventions can promote a better understanding of the principles of teamwork, help staff understand each other's roles and perspectives, and help develop specific communication strategies, but may not be sufficient on their own. Psychological barriers, such as professional silos and hierarchies, and organisational barriers such as geographically distributed teams, can increase the chance of communication failures with the potential for patient harm. We propose a seven-step plan to overcome the barriers to effective team communication that incorporates education, psychological and organisational strategies. Recent evidence suggests that improvement in teamwork in healthcare can lead to significant gains in patient safety, measured against efficiency of care, complication rate and mortality. Interventions to improve teamwork in healthcare may be the next major advance in patient outcomes.

  • EDUCATION & TRAINING (see Medical Education & Training)
  • Quality in health care < HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION & MANAGEMENT

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2012-131168

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Introduction

    Modern healthcare is delivered by teams rather than individuals and requires the cooperation of healthcare professionals from multiple disciplines. However, the evidence suggests that these changes in healthcare delivery have not been supported by changes in the systems for communication between health professionals, especially across disciplines. Approaches that may have been effective in earlier, less complex and less distributed environments no longer reliably work.1 We know that failures in interprofessional teamwork and communication lead directly to compromised patient care, staff distress, tension and inefficiency2–7; make a substantial contribution to medical error8–13; and are a contributory factor in 61% of sentinel events.7

    In this review, our focus will be on improving sharing of important clinical information between healthcare professionals. We will first describe the features of effective teams. We will then discuss the evidence on information sharing between different members of the team and categorise the challenges to interprofessional teamwork and communication in healthcare into three domains: educational, psychological and organisational. Finally, we will suggest a range of solutions to these challenges, synthesising these into a seven-point plan to promote effective healthcare teams. While our focus is predominantly on hospital-based teams, we believe lessons can be generalised to wider healthcare settings.

    Features of effective teams

    Following an extensive review of the factors associated with team performance across a range of industries, Salas14 proposed a model for five key dimensions of effective teams: team leadership, mutual performance monitoring, backup behaviour, adaptability and a team orientation. These are coordinated by the underpinning mechanisms of mutual trust, closed-loop communication and shared mental models. Leadership involves not only task coordination and planning, but development of the team, motivation and establishing a positive atmosphere. Mutual performance monitoring requires sufficient understanding of the environment to enable monitoring of other team members to allow identification of lapses or task overload, while backup behaviour requires sufficient understanding of others’ tasks to enable supportive actions to be taken by team members, such as redistribution of workload or support. Adaptability enables a team to respond to changes in the environment and change the plan for patient management. Team orientation is the willingness to take other's ideas and perspectives into account and a belief that the team's goals, which should be aligned with what is best for the patient, are more important than an individual's goals. To achieve these five dimensions of effective teams, members of the team must respect and trust each other in order to give and receive feedback on their performance, must have good communication skills to accurately convey information and must have a shared mental model. Shared mental models have been identified as one of the critical underpinning mechanisms for effective teamwork in general15 and specifically in healthcare.14 ,16 ,17 Shared mental models lead to a common understanding of the situation, the plan for treatment, and the roles and tasks of the individuals in the team. This is often described as the team being ‘on the same page’. A shared mental model enables anticipation of other's needs, identifying changes in the clinical situation and adjusting strategies as needed. Without a shared mental model, the different members of the team cannot fully contribute to problem solving and decision making.18 A fundamental requirement for developing a shared mental model, and for effective team performance, is sharing of information between team members.

    Information sharing: a challenge for healthcare teams

    A meta-analysis of 72 independent studies (incorporating 4795 teams) across a range of industries showed that information sharing positively predicted the performance of the team.19 There are multiple interfaces where transmission of information between members of the healthcare team is needed for safe and effective patient care. Particular areas where information sharing has been shown to be inadequate are the interface between contexts, such as interdepartmental transfers,20 or transfers from primary to secondary care21; high-acuity settings, such as the emergency department22 or the operating room2; patient handovers at change of shift23; and information sharing across professional boundaries, for example, between doctors and nurse.24

    In a study on medical ward handovers, less than half of residents felt confident in their patient handovers.23 In an observational study of operating room communications, Lingard2 classified over a quarter of communication events as failures, and 36% of these had visible adverse effects, including inefficiency, waste, delay, tension and procedural error. Mazzocco et al.25 found that teams who shared information about the patient less frequently at the start of a surgical case and at the handover postsurgery had more than double the risk of surgical complications than teams that shared such information frequently. Observers of postoperative handovers found that much critical information (eg, allergies or intraoperative problems) was not communicated from OR doctors to ward nurses.26 ,27 There is also evidence suggesting that specific techniques to improve information sharing can improve clinical management, such as, in the high acuity setting, declaring an emergency and sharing information about a crisis with the team28 or ‘thinking aloud’—verbalising observations and decision-making processes to the team to share your mental model.29

    The failures in information sharing described above, so critical to effective team communication and safe patient care, are sequelae of educational, psychological and organisational factors.

    Educational factors

    While considerable attention has been paid to doctor–patient communication in the undergraduate medical curriculum, less is being done to train medical students on how to communicate with other health professionals.30–32 Each professional group has different ways of organising information due to their different educational programmes. Different professional groups have different expectations concerning the content, structure and timing of information transfer33, and may not understand the role and priorities of other groups.34 Education for health professionals remains largely discipline-specific with minimal interaction between healthcare disciplines.35 Training occurs largely within professional ‘silos’, and few healthcare providers receive specific training in teamwork.36 ,37 Such separation of disciplines and differences in education does little to address understanding of others roles, responsibilities or priorities, and may contribute to problems when interprofessional teamwork is required.

    Psychological factors

    While development of a professional identity as a doctor or a nurse is a key part of professional education, there are some downsides. Psychologically, the distinction between ‘ingroup’ and ‘outgroup’ is strong38 ,39 and social identity theory explains that members of a professional group (eg, medicine, nursing or the allied health professions) tend to see the attributes of their group as positive and those of other groups as less desirable.40–42 Certain types of people are also attracted to certain professions and specialties,43 strengthening this ‘tribal’ phenomenon. These professional allegiances can lead to tensions when different professional groups have different expectations about how things should be done.44 This is reflected in the findings of The Joint Commission International, whose international patient safety goals include improving effective communication among clinical staff.45 A further psychological barrier to effective communication is the hierarchical structure in healthcare. Although senior staff are happy to use commands, less senior staff may not feel they can challenge decisions or offer suggestions or alternative diagnoses and so may conceal their concerns.32 ,46 This hierarchical structure has been proven to have disastrous consequences in aviation crews where junior pilots failed to challenge misguided decisions of their superiors.47

    Organisational factors

    The physical geography of a hospital and the geographical location of patients within the hospital can affect the efficient scheduling activities of the patient care team, such as ward rounds, or scheduled meetings to discuss patient management plans. These geographical and organisational factors act as barriers to information sharing, with junior doctors describing the difficulties in coordinating patient care across multiple wards, with multiple different staff, relying on ‘opportunistic meetings’ with nurses or physiotherapists to convey important information.1 Likewise, nurses, who may know the patient best, may not be present when key decisions are made about their patient. The reality is that staff may know what sort of communication is required, but the environment is not conducive to actually doing this. Additionally, different clinical areas may use different forms or incompatible software, making it difficult to access or interpret information.40 The interface between electronic patient notes in primary and secondary care is one example.

    Seven interventions to improve team information sharing

    Given that there are many challenges to successful information sharing and the formation of shared mental models among modern, distributed healthcare teams, no one solution is likely to be adequate in alleviating the problem. If we are to enhance effective information sharing and therefore reduce harm to patients, then healthcare must take a multifactorial approach that addresses education, psychology and organisational factors. Rather than specific training, much of this is about creating conditions that prompt, reward or facilitate appropriate behaviours, such that health professionals actually do what they already know how to do.

    Learning how to improve and enhance their communication is a priority for today's healthcare teams. Other industries have identified effective approaches,48 and these can inform strategies for helping healthcare teams. Broadly, the barriers to effective communication in healthcare teams are educational, psychological or organisational. We have put together the following seven approaches to overcoming these barriers that should help healthcare teams determined to improve communication (table 1).

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Seven actions to overcome barriers to team communication in healthcare

    Overcoming educational barriers

    Teach effective communication strategies

    A number of strategies have been suggested to improve information sharing in healthcare. Reviews of these exist, arguing that health practitioners’ ‘verbal dexterity’ should equal their procedural dexterity and factual knowledge.32 Some of the more researched tools are given with references in table 1. One area where communication strategies may be most useful is at patient handover.49 Many staff feel that handovers are not effective enough,23 and data are emerging regarding what factors constitute good quality handover.50 Higher ratings of handover quality from those receiving the information were found when the person handing over made more of an assessment of the patient. This is likely to be because information unknown to the receiver is highlighted. Staff also feel that handovers are of better quality when the person receiving the handover needed to do less information seeking.51 Handover quality can be improved, self-reported sentinel incidents avoided and unexpected deaths reduced by implementing a simple structured handover tool,23 one version of which comprises the acronym SBAR or ISBAR 52 (see table 2).

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Strategies to improve communication

    Train teams together

    Education is one approach and is supported by the U.S. Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommendation that teams who work together should train together.36 This is directly related to the IOM core competency of ‘working as interdisciplinary teams’. Training together can promote better understanding of others’ roles. Training that includes all members of the team has been shown to improve patient outcomes. For example, comprehensive team training in obstetrics and in surgery has been shown to prevent errors and improve patient safety. Merién et al.58 reviewed teamwork training in obstetrics and reported studies that not only improved team knowledge but improved APGAR scores and reduced hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy. Neily et al.59 reported a 50% decline in the risk-adjusted surgical mortality rate in the team-training group compared with controls across over 100 hospitals.

    Train teams using simulation

    Working together in an immersive simulation can be a powerful intervention to trigger discussion about roles, responsibilities and information sharing around patient management. Simulation, with appropriate postscenario debriefing, provides insights into how other professional groups think and feel, and a better understanding of how to support each other and maximise everyone's input to patient care. Such opportunities present a chance for culture change, through developing mutual respect and trust, an orientation to team rather than individual, and an appreciation of the value to the patient of a shared mental model.

    Simulation is a safe environment for deliberate practice of particular communication strategies, for example, those described in table 1. Learning can be facilitated by structured debrief with the opportunity for participants to view video-recordings of their own communication behaviour. Seeing how you appear to others can be a powerful motivator to change. A meta-analysis of 609 studies has demonstrated that simulation can unequivocally enhance knowledge, time management skills, process skills and product skills.60

    Overcoming psychological barriers

    Define inclusive teams

    To overcome the barriers that ingroup/outgroup psychology poses, there is a need to redefine the ‘team’ of healthcare professionals from a collection of discipline-based teams to a cohesive healthcare team. Salas’ model of teamwork emphasises the need for a team orientation, but Burford41 explains that staff self-categorise and identify with different groups at different times. Where the environment can be manipulated to emphasise and value the input from all health professionals to the care of a patient, the importance of belonging to the whole healthcare team will be emphasised over the single discipline subteam. Such environmental manipulations exist in the chronic care specialities where multidisciplinary team meetings are well established. This model could be extended to acute inpatient care, for example, scheduled inpatient ward rounds where all relevant health professionals are able to attend and all have a role, or whole team briefing at the start of a day's operating theatre list. Such interventions could overcome psychological barriers to interprofessional communication and enhance a sense of belonging to an inclusive patient care team.

    Create democratic teams

    Structured communication strategies can help to create more democratic teams, where all members are confident of being heard. Bleakley argues that such a democratic communication framework is needed in healthcare.61 Every member of the team needs to be empowered to contribute their information to decision making. In Salas’ model of teamwork, mutual trust is a central factor. If all team members are valued, and feel their contributions are important and acknowledged, then trust can be established. Structures that encourage open team communication, such as flat hierarchies or the WHO surgical safety checklist,62 aim for an inclusive team and work to mitigate barriers to information sharing and therefore decrease the potential for patient harm. Graded assertion is a technique for escalating the force with which information is presented to ensure transmission, particularly up a hierarchy. The PACE technique (Probe, Alert, Challenge, Emergency)48 is one such tool. If everyone on the team is familiar with structured communication techniques such as time-out or PACE, then their use can be accepted and welcomed.

    Overcoming organisational barriers

    Support teamwork with protocols and procedures

    Effective information sharing may require support from organisational protocols. Structured operating room briefings that are timetabled into the day's activities are an opportunity to share the mental model and have been demonstrated to enhance patient safety, for example, by increasing timely prophylactic antibiotic administration.63 Procedures should be instituted that ensure all team members (including the patient) are present, and all information is available, when important decisions are made. At Emory University Hospital, the structured interdisciplinary bedside rounds (SIBR) system is a new procedure that brings the multidisciplinary ward team together routinely in time and place for rounds.64 This is an organisational procedure that overcomes the geographical and temporal challenges often faced by healthcare teams where patients and team members are spread across the hospital and belong to a number of different teams. Early findings suggest a significant reduction in patient complications and mortality. It is likely that the significant reductions in patient morbidity and mortality associated with the introduction of the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist similarly arise partly from the participation of all staff in the same place at the same time to share patient information, plans and potential concerns for patient care.31 Other ways of enhancing structures to make them more conducive to information sharing are to align paperwork and IT systems so that data are recorded consistently and in familiar formats, that crucial information is highlighted and that red flags are identified with mandatory reporting requirements. An example of this is the New South Wales Health ‘between the flags’ project, which mandates escalation of abnormal patient observations.65

    Develop an organisational culture supporting healthcare teams

    Organisational culture is an important element in the prevention of error,42 and this culture is established by those in leadership roles at both institutional and healthcare team level.66 ,67 The organisation has a financial interest in improving information sharing as failures in information exchange leads to inefficiencies and increased costs. Delays in treatment, waste of resources and prolonged hospital stays have been observed as a direct result of communication failures in the operating room2 and seem likely to occur in all aspects of healthcare. If healthcare institutions are to evolve adaptively, then senior champions, department heads and individual clinicians must recognise the imperative of interprofessional collaboration and teamwork for safe and efficient patient care.

    Conclusion

    With increasing complexity and even more specialisation of skills, the current healthcare environment demands effective communication and teamwork to reliably deliver best patient care. We have perhaps paid insufficient attention to the new challenges the modern healthcare environment poses to the effective sharing information between providers. The aim is to ensure all team members have a shared understanding of the situation and are working towards the same goals in patient care. This article has provided a review of these challenges and presented a range of strategies to address them. Ongoing research should evaluate interventions to structure communications and support information sharing. Interventions to improve team communication may be the next major advance in improving patient outcomes.

    Self assessment questions

    1. A shared mental model is a critical requirement for effective teamwork. Which of the following is not a component of a shared mental model?

      1. All team members understand the general plan

      2. All team members know each other's roles

      3. All team members can perform all of the required tasks

      4. All team members are ‘on the same page’

      5. All team members know each other's capabilities

    2. Failures in communication in healthcare teams have been shown to

      1. Contribute to 61% of sentinel events

      2. Result in visible adverse events over one-third of the time

      3. More than double the risk of surgical complications

      4. All of the above

      5. None of the above

    3. Which psychological and organisational factors are challenges to effective interprofessional teamwork in healthcare?

      1. Hierarchical structures

      2. Colocation of patients and the patient care team

      3. Development of professional identities

      4. A&B

      5. A&C

    4. What training strategy has been shown to reduce risk-adjusted mortality rates by 50% across over 100 hospitals?

      1. Teaching effective communication strategies

      2. Training together as a team

      3. Using simulation-based training

      4. All of the above

      5. None of the above

    5. Which of the following is not an example of a successful initiative to support teamwork with protocols and procedures?

      1. Using discipline-specific IT systems and paperwork

      2. WHO surgical safety checklist

      3. Structured daily briefings

      4. Emory University Hospital SIBR system

      5. New South Wales Health ‘between the flags’ project

    Answers

    1. A-T, B-T, C-F, D-T, E-T

    2. A-T, B-T, C-T, D-T, E-F

    3. A-T, B-F, C-T, D-F, E-T

    4. A-F, B-T, C-F, D-F, E-F

    5. A-T, B-F, C-F, D-F, E-F

    Main messages

    • Compelling evidence now exists relating reduced patient complications and death to improved teamwork in healthcare.

    • Challenges to effective teamwork arise due to the way different disciplines are trained, psychological factors and the culture and administration of healthcare organisations.

    • Strategies exist to improve the function of healthcare teams at the level of individuals, patient care teams and organisations.

    Current research questions

    • Elucidate the association between patient harm or inefficient care, and failures in teamwork and communication.

    • Develop and evaluate interventions to improve teamwork and communication with safe and effective patient care as the primary outcome.

    • Translational research to embed evidence-based teamwork and communication interventions in clinical and organisational practice.

    Key references

    • Salas E, Sims DE, Burke CS. Is there a “Big Five” in teamwork? Small Group Research 2005;36:555–99.

    • Mazzocco K, Petitti DB, Fong KT, et al. Surgical team behaviors and patient outcomes. The Am J Surg 2009;197(5):678–85.

    • Burford B. Group processes in medical education: learning from social identity theory. Med Educ 2012;46(2):143–52.

    • Haig K, Sutton S, Whittington J. SBAR: a shared mental model for improving communication between clinicians. Jnt Comm J Qual Pat Saft 2006;32(3):167–75.

    • Haynes A, Weiser T, Berry W, et al. A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. N Engl J Med 2009;360:491–9.

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Weller J,
      2. Barrow M,
      3. Gasquoine S
      . Interprofessional collaboration among junior doctors and nurses in the hospital setting. Med Educ 2011;45:478–487.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    2. ↵
      1. Lingard L,
      2. Espin S,
      3. Whyte S,
      4. et al
      . Communication failures in the operating room: an observational classification of recurrent types and effects. Qual Saf Health Care 2004;13:330–4.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    3. ↵
      1. Pronovost PJ,
      2. Berenholtz S,
      3. Dorman T,
      4. et al
      . Improving communication in the ICU using daily goals. Crit Care 2003;18:71–5.
      OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    4. ↵
      1. Sutcliffe KM,
      2. Lewton E,
      3. Rosenthal MM
      . Communication failures: an insidious contributor to medical mishaps. Acad Med 2004;79:186–94.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    5. ↵
      1. Alvarez G,
      2. Coiera E
      . Interdisciplinary communication: an uncharted source of medical error? J Crit Care 2006;21:236–42.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    6. ↵
      1. St Pierre M,
      2. Hofinger G,
      3. Buerschaper C
      . Crisis management in acute care settings: human factors and team psychology in a high-stakes environment. New York: Springer, 2008.
    7. ↵
      JCAHO. Sentinel Event Data 2012.
    8. ↵
      1. Bognor M
      . Human error in medicine. 1st edn. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Association Inc, 1994.
    9. ↵
      1. Reader TW,
      2. Flin R,
      3. Cuthbertson BH
      . Communication skills and error in the intensive care unit. Curr Op Critl Care 2007;13:732–6.
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    10. ↵
      1. Helmreich R
      , ed. Threat and error in aviation and medicine: similar and different. Special medical seminar, lessons for health care: applied human factors research. Australian Council of Safety and Quality in Health Care & NSW Ministerial Council for Quality in Health Care, 2000.
    11. ↵
      1. Reason J
      . Human error. 1st edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
    12. ↵
      1. Manser T,
      2. Harrison TK,
      3. Gaba DM,
      4. et al
      . Coordination patterns related to high clinical performance in a simulated anesthetic crisis. Anesth Anal 2009;108:1606–15.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    13. ↵
      1. Webb RK,
      2. Currie M,
      3. Morgan CA,
      4. et al
      . The Australian Incident Monitoring Study: an analysis of 2000 incident reports. Anaesth Intensive Care 1993;21:520–8.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    14. ↵
      1. Salas E,
      2. Sims DE,
      3. Burke CS
      . Is there a “Big Five” in teamwork? Small Group Res 2005;36:555–99.
      OpenUrlAbstract
    15. ↵
      1. Salas E,
      2. Cooke NJ,
      3. Rosen MA
      . On teams, teamwork, and team performance: discoveries and developments. J Hum Factors Ergon Soc 2008;50:540–7.
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    16. ↵
      1. Burtscher MJ,
      2. Kolbe M,
      3. Wacher J
      . Interactions of team mental models and monitoring behaviours predict team performance in simulated anesthesia inductions. J Exp Psychol 2011;17:257–69.
      OpenUrl
    17. ↵
      1. Westli HK,
      2. Johnsen BH,
      3. Eid J,
      4. et al
      . Teamwork skills, shared mental models, and performance in simulated trauma teams: an independent group design. Scand J Trauma, Resus, Emerg Med 2010;18:47.
    18. ↵
      1. Stout RJ,
      2. Cannon-Bower JA,
      3. Salas E,
      4. et al
      . Planning, shared mental models, and coordinated performance: An Empirical link is established. Hum Factors 1999;41:61.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    19. ↵
      1. Mesmer-Magnus JR,
      2. DeChurch L
      . Information sharing and team performance: a meta-analysis. J App Psych 2009;94:535–46.
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    20. ↵
      1. Toccafondi G,
      2. Albolino S,
      3. Tartaglia R,
      4. et al
      . The collaborative communication model for patient handover at the interface between high-acuity and low-acuity care. BMJ Qual Saf 2012;21:i58–66.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    21. ↵
      1. Mead G,
      2. Cunnington A,
      3. Faulkner S,
      4. et al
      . Can general practitioner referral letters for acute medical admissions be improved? Health Bulletin (Edinb) 1999;57:257–61.
      OpenUrl
    22. ↵
      1. Redfern E,
      2. Brown R,
      3. Vincent C
      . Improving communication in the emergency department. Emerg Med J 2009;26:658–61.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    23. ↵
      1. Payne C,
      2. Stein J,
      3. Leong T,
      4. et al
      . Avoiding handover fumbles: a controlled trial of a structured handover tool versus traditional handover methods. BMJ Qual Saf 2012;21:925–32.
    24. ↵
      1. Leonard M,
      2. Graham D,
      3. Bonacum D
      . The human factor: the critical importance of effective teamwork and communication in providing safe care. Qual Saf Health Care 2004;13(Suppl 1):i85–90.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    25. ↵
      1. Mazzocco K,
      2. Petitti DB,
      3. Fong KT,
      4. et al
      . Surgical team behaviors and patient outcomes.  Am J Surg 2009;197:678–85.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    26. ↵
      1. Nagpal K,
      2. Vats A,
      3. Ahmed K,
      4. et al
      . An evaluation of information transfer through the continuum of surgical care: a feasability study. Ann Surg 2010;252:402–7.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    27. ↵
      1. Schwilk B,
      2. Gravenstein N,
      3. Blessing S,
      4. et al
      . Postoperative information transfer: a study comparing two university hospitals. Int J Clin Mon Comput 1994;11:145–9.
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    28. ↵
      1. Siassakos D,
      2. Bristowe K,
      3. Draycott T,
      4. et al
      . Clinical efficiency in a simulated emergency and relationship to team behaviours: a multisite cross-sectional study. BJOG 2011;118:596–607.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    29. ↵
      1. Tschan F,
      2. Semner N,
      3. Gurtner A,
      4. et al
      . Explicit reasoning, confirmation bias, and illusory transactice memory: a simulation study of group medical decision making. Small Group Res 2009;40:271–300.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    30. ↵
      1. Ziewacz JE,
      2. Arriaga AF,
      3. Bader AM,
      4. et al
      . Crisis checklists for the operating room: development and pilot testing. J Am Coll Surg 2011;213:212–19.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    31. ↵
      1. Haynes AB,
      2. Weiser TG,
      3. Berry WR,
      4. et al
      . Changes in safety attitude and relationship to decreased postoperative morbidity and mortality following implementation of a checklist-based surgical safety intervention. BMJ Qual Saf 2011;20:102–7.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    32. ↵
      1. Brindley P,
      2. Reynolds S
      . Improving verbal communication in critical care medicine. J Crit Care 2011;26:155–9.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    33. ↵
      1. Smith A,
      2. Pope C,
      3. Goodwin D,
      4. et al
      . Interprofessional handover and patient safety in anaesthesia: observational study of handovers in the recovery room. Br J Anaesth 2008;101:332–7.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    34. ↵
      1. Rodehorst TK,
      2. Wilhelm SL,
      3. Jensen L
      . Use of interdisciplinary simulation to understand perceptions of team members’ roles. JProf Nurs 2005;21:159–66.
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    35. ↵
      1. Galloway S
      . Simulation techniques to bridge the gap between novice and competent healthcare professionals. OJIN 2009;14(2):Manuscript 3.
    36. ↵
      Institute of Medicine. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000.
    37. ↵
      1. Greiner A,
      2. Knebel E
      . Health professional education: a bridge to quality. Washington, DC: National Academic Press, 2003.
    38. ↵
      1. Sherif M,
      2. Harvey OJ,
      3. White BJ,
      4. et al
      . Intergroup conflict and cooperation: the robbers cave experiment. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Book Exchange, 1961.
    39. ↵
      1. Goethe L,
      2. Huffman D,
      3. Meier S
      . The impact of group membership on cooperation and norm enforcement: evidence using random assignment to real social groups. Am Econom Rev 2006;96:212–16.
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    40. ↵
      1. Weller J
      . Shedding new light on tribalism in health care. Med Educ 2012;46:134–6.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    41. ↵
      1. Burford B
      . Group processes in medical education: learning from social identity theory. Med Educ 2012;46:143–52.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    42. ↵
      1. Aron D,
      2. Headrick L
      . Educating physicians prepared to improve care and safety is no accident: it requires a systematic approach. BMJ Qual Saf Health Care 2002;11:168–73.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    43. ↵
      1. Taber BJ,
      2. Hartung PJ,
      3. Borges NJ
      . Personality and values as predictors of medical specialty choice. J Vocational Behav 2011;78:202–9.
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    44. ↵
      1. Hudson B
      . Interprofessionality in health and social care: the achilles heel of partnership? JJ Interprof Care 2002;16:7–17.
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    45. ↵
      JCI. Joint Commission International Accreditation Standards for Hospitals. Illinois: Joint Commission International, 2010.
    46. ↵
      1. Thomas EJ,
      2. Sexton JB,
      3. Helmreich RL
      . Discrepant attitudes about teamwork among critical care nurses and physicians. Critical Care Medicine. 2003;31:956–9.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    47. ↵
      1. Gladwell M
      . The ethnic theory of plane crashes. In: Gladwell M. ed. Outliers. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2008, 177–223.
    48. ↵
      1. Dunn EJ,
      2. Mills PD,
      3. Neily J,
      4. et al
      . Medical team training: applying crew resource management in the Veterans Health Administration. Jnt Com JQual Pat Saf 2007;33:317–25.
      OpenUrl
    49. ↵
      1. Manser T,
      2. Foster S
      . Effective handover communication: an overview of research and improvement efforts. Best Prac Res Clin Anaesthesiol 2011;25:181–91.
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    50. ↵
      1. Foster S,
      2. Manser T
      . The effects of patient handoff characteristics on subsequent care: a systematic review and areas for future research. Acad Med 2012;87:1105–24.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    51. ↵
      1. Manser T,
      2. Foster S,
      3. Flin R,
      4. et al
      . Team communication during patient handover from the operating room: more than facts and figures. Hum Factors 2013;55:138–56.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    52. ↵
      1. De Meester K,
      2. Verspuy M,
      3. Monsieurs K,
      4. et al
      . SBAR improves nurse–physician communication and reduces unexpected death: a pre and post intervention study. Resuscitation 2013;84:1192–6.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Parush A,
      2. Kramer C,
      3. Foster-Hunt T,
      4. et al
      . Communication and team situation awareness in the OR: implications for augmentatice information display. J Biomed Informatics 2011;44:477–85.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      1. Burke CS,
      2. Salas E,
      3. Wilson-Donnelly K,
      4. et al
      . How to turn a team of experts into an expert medical team: guidance from the aviation and military communities. BMJ Qual Safety Health Care 2004;13(Suppl 1):i96–i104.
      OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
      1. Thompson JE,
      2. Collett LW,
      3. Langbart MJ,
      4. et al
      . Using the ISBAR handover tool in junior medical officer handover: a study in an Australian tertiary hospital. Postgrad Med J 2011;87:340–4.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
      1. Haig K,
      2. Sutton S,
      3. Whittington J
      . SBAR: a shared mental model for improving communication between clinicians. Jnt Comm J Qual Pat Saft 2006;32:167–75.
      OpenUrl
      1. Reisenberg L,
      2. Leitzch J,
      3. Little B
      . Systematic review of handoff mnemonics literature. Am J Med Qual 2009;24:196–204.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    58. ↵
      1. Merién AER,
      2. van de Ven J,
      3. Mol BW,
      4. et al
      . Multidisciplinary team training in a simulation setting for acute obstetric emergencies. Ob Gyn 2010;115:1021–31.
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    59. ↵
      1. Neily J,
      2. Mills PD,
      3. Young-Xu Y,
      4. et al
      . Association between implementation of a medical team training program and surgical mortality. J Am Med Assoc 2010;304:1693–700.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    60. ↵
      1. Cook D,
      2. Hatala R,
      3. Brydges R,
      4. et al
      . Technology-enhanced simulation for health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Med Assoc 2011;306:978–88.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    61. ↵
      1. Bleakley A,
      2. Bligh J,
      3. Browne J
      . Medical education for the future. New York: Springer, 2011.
    62. ↵
      1. Haynes A,
      2. Weiser T,
      3. Berry W,
      4. et al
      . A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. N Engl J Med 2009;360:491–9.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    63. ↵
      1. Lingard L,
      2. Regehr G,
      3. Orser B,
      4. et al
      . Evaluation of a preoperative checklist and team briefing among surgeons, nurses, and anesthesiologists to reduce failures in communication. Arch Surg 2008;143:12–7.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    64. ↵
      1. Payne C,
      2. Odetoyinbo D,
      3. Castle B,
      4. et al
      . Accountable care on a medical ward in a teaching hospital: a new care model designed to improve patient and hosptial outcomes. J Hosp Med 2012;7(Suppl 2):191.
    65. ↵
      NSW Health. Between the flags. NSW Government; 2012 [cited 2012 4th October]; http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/initiatives/btf/index.asp.
    66. ↵
      1. Henrich J,
      2. Boyd R
      . The evolution of conformist transmission and the emergence of between-group differences. Evol Hum Behav 1998;19:215–41.
      OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    67. ↵
      1. Henrich J,
      2. Gil-White F
      . The evolution of prestige Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evol Hum Behav 2001;22:165–96.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    View Abstract

    Footnotes

    • Contributors JW conceived the idea and shaped the manuscript. MB and DC contributed to the writing and revision, reference search and construction of tables and figures.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.