Miller Christopher J, Kim Bo, Silverman Allie, Bauer Mark S
Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research (CHOIR), VA Boston Healthcare System (152M), 150 South Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA, 02130, USA.
Harvard Medical School, Department of Psychiatry, Boston, USA.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Mar 1;18(1):146. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-2961-9.
Healthcare is increasingly delivered in a team-based format emphasizing interdisciplinary coordination. While recent reviews have investigated team-building interventions primarily in acute healthcare settings (e.g. emergency or surgery departments), we aimed to systematically review the evidence base for team-building interventions in non-acute settings (e.g. primary care or rehabilitation clinics).
We conducted a systematic review in PubMed and Embase to identify team-building interventions, and conducted follow-up literature searches to identify articles describing empirical studies of those interventions. This process identified 14 team-building interventions for non-acute healthcare settings, and 25 manuscripts describing empirical studies of these interventions. We evaluated outcomes in four domains: trainee evaluations, teamwork attitudes/knowledge, team functioning, and patient impact.
Trainee evaluations for team-building interventions were generally positive, but only one study associated team-building with statistically significant improvement in teamwork attitudes/knowledge. Similarly mixed results emerged for team functioning and patient impact.
The evidence base for healthcare team-building interventions in non-acute healthcare settings is much less developed than the parallel literature for short-term team function in acute care settings. Only one intervention we identified has been tested in multiple non-acute settings by distinct research teams. Positive findings regarding the utility of team-building interventions are tempered by a lack of control conditions, inconsistency in outcome measures, and high probability of bias. Considering these results alongside the well-recognized costs of poor healthcare teamwork suggests that additional research is sorely needed to develop the evidence base for team-building in non-acute settings.
医疗保健越来越多地以强调跨学科协调的团队形式提供。虽然最近的综述主要调查了急性医疗环境(如急诊科或外科)中的团队建设干预措施,但我们旨在系统地综述非急性环境(如初级保健或康复诊所)中团队建设干预措施的证据基础。
我们在PubMed和Embase上进行了系统综述,以识别团队建设干预措施,并进行后续文献检索,以识别描述这些干预措施实证研究的文章。这一过程确定了14种针对非急性医疗环境的团队建设干预措施,以及25篇描述这些干预措施实证研究的手稿。我们评估了四个领域的结果:学员评价、团队合作态度/知识、团队功能和患者影响。
团队建设干预措施的学员评价总体上是积极的,但只有一项研究将团队建设与团队合作态度/知识的统计学显著改善联系起来。团队功能和患者影响方面也出现了类似的混合结果。
非急性医疗环境中医疗团队建设干预措施的证据基础远不如急性护理环境中短期团队功能的平行文献发达。我们确定的只有一种干预措施在多个非急性环境中由不同的研究团队进行了测试。关于团队建设干预措施效用的积极发现因缺乏对照条件、结果测量不一致以及存在高偏差可能性而受到影响。将这些结果与医疗团队合作不佳所带来的公认成本一并考虑,表明迫切需要进行更多研究,以发展非急性环境中团队建设的证据基础。