Kolbe Michaela, Boos Margarete
Simulation Center, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Institute for Psychology, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Front Psychol. 2019 Jun 28;10:1478. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01478. eCollection 2019.
In this manuscript we discuss the consequences of methodological choices when studying team processes "in the wild." We chose teams in healthcare as the application because teamwork cannot only save lives but the processes constituting effective teamwork in healthcare are prototypical for teamwork as they range from decision-making (e.g., in multidisciplinary decision-making boards in cancer care) to leadership and coordination (e.g., in fast-paced, acute-care settings in trauma, surgery and anesthesia) to reflection and learning (e.g., in post-event clinical debriefings). We draw upon recently emphasized critique that much empirical team research has focused on describing team states rather than investigating how team processes dynamically unfurl over time and how these dynamics predict team outcomes. This focus on statics instead of dynamics limits the gain of applicable knowledge on team functioning in organizations. We first describe three examples from healthcare that reflect the importance, scope, and challenges of teamwork: multidisciplinary decision-making boards, fast-paced, acute care settings, and post-event clinical team debriefings. Second, we put the methodological approaches of how teamwork in these representative examples has mostly been studied centerstage (i.e., using mainly surveys, database reviews, and rating tools) and highlight how the resulting findings provide only limited insights into the actual team processes and the quality thereof, leaving little room for identifying and targeting success factors. Third, we discuss how methodical approaches that take dynamics into account (i.e., event- and time-based behavior observation and micro-level coding, social sensor-based measurement) would contribute to the science of teams by providing actionable knowledge about interaction processes of successful teamwork.
在本手稿中,我们讨论了在“自然状态下”研究团队过程时方法选择所带来的影响。我们选择医疗保健领域的团队作为应用对象,因为团队合作不仅能挽救生命,而且医疗保健中构成有效团队合作的过程是团队合作的典型代表,涵盖从决策制定(例如,在癌症护理的多学科决策委员会中)到领导与协调(例如,在创伤、手术和麻醉的快节奏急症护理环境中)再到反思与学习(例如,在事后临床汇报中)等方面。我们借鉴了最近被强调的批评观点,即许多实证性团队研究专注于描述团队状态,而非调查团队过程如何随时间动态展开以及这些动态如何预测团队成果。这种对静态而非动态的关注限制了在组织中团队运作方面可应用知识的获取。我们首先描述医疗保健领域的三个例子,它们反映了团队合作的重要性、范围和挑战:多学科决策委员会、快节奏急症护理环境以及事后临床团队汇报。其次,我们将这些典型例子中团队合作的主要研究方法(即主要使用调查、数据库审查和评级工具)置于核心位置,并强调由此得出的研究结果对实际团队过程及其质量的洞察有限,几乎没有空间来识别和确定成功因素。第三,我们讨论考虑动态因素的方法(即基于事件和时间的行为观察与微观层面编码、基于社会传感器的测量)如何通过提供有关成功团队合作互动过程的可操作知识,为团队科学做出贡献。