Skip to main content

Table 4 Teamwork assessment in real critical events (TeamMonitor) [36]

From: Inter-professional in-situ simulated team and resuscitation training for patient safety: Description and impact of a programmatic approach

Items

 

Not applicable

Number of score ≤ 1

Need for training

1

Do you feel that leader was recognized by all team members ?

1/35

14/34

yes

(3 %)

(41 %)

2

Do you think the leader assured maintenance of an appropriate balance between command authority and team member participation ?

3/35

11/32

yes

(9 %)

(34 %)

3

Do you feel that each team member demonstrated clear understanding of his/her role ?

1/35

20/34

urgent

(3 %)

(59 %)*

4

Do you think the team prompted each other to attend to all significant clinical indicators throughout the scenario ?

0/35

10/35

none

(−)

(29 %)*

5

Do you think team members verbalized their activities loud when they were actively involved with the patient ?

0/35

31/35

urgent

(−)

(89 %)*

6

Do you feel that the team members repeated back or paraphrased instructions and clarifications to indicate that they heard them correctly ?

0/35

31/35

urgent

(−)

(89)*

7

Do you feel that disagreement of conflicts among team members were adressed without a loss of situation awareness ?

16/35

3/19

none

(46 %)

(16 %)*

8

Do you think roles were shifted to adress urgent or emergent events when appropriate ?

15/35

5/20

none

(43 %)

(25 %)*

9

Do you think team members responded to potential errors or complications with procedures that avoided the error or complication ?

15/35

8/20

yes

(43 %)

(40 %)

  1. TeamMonitor (team-based self-assessment tool for teamwork: modified Mayo High Performance Teamwork Scale): 0 = never/rarely; 1 = inconsistently; 2 = consistently
  2. *Difference of urgent-gap items 3, 5 and 6 to no-gap items 4, 7 and 8 are statistically significant (p < 0.05)