Improving Anesthesiologists' Ability to Speak Up in the Operating Room: A Randomized Controlled Experiment of a Simulation-Based Intervention and a Qualitative Analysis of Hurdles and Enablers. (April 2016)
- Record Type:
- Journal Article
- Title:
- Improving Anesthesiologists' Ability to Speak Up in the Operating Room: A Randomized Controlled Experiment of a Simulation-Based Intervention and a Qualitative Analysis of Hurdles and Enablers. (April 2016)
- Main Title:
- Improving Anesthesiologists' Ability to Speak Up in the Operating Room
- Authors:
- Raemer, Daniel B.
Kolbe, Michaela
Minehart, Rebecca D.
Rudolph, Jenny W.
Pian-Smith, May C.M. - Abstract:
- Abstract : Purpose: The authors addressed three questions: (1) Would a realistic simulation-based educational intervention improve speaking-up behaviors of practicing nontrainee anesthesiologists? (2) What would those speaking-up behaviors be when the issue emanated from a surgeon, a circulating nurse, or an anesthesiologist colleague? (3) What were the hurdles and enablers to speaking up in those situations? Method: The authors conducted a simulation-based randomized controlled experiment from March 2008–February 2011 at the Center for Medical Simulation, Boston, Massachusetts. During a mandatory crisis management course for practicing nontrainee anesthesiologists from five Boston institutions, a 50-minute workshop on speaking up was conducted for intervention (n = 35) and control (n = 36) groups before or after, respectively, an experimental scenario with three events. The authors analyzed videos of the experimental scenarios and debriefing sessions. Results: No statistically significant differences between the intervention and control group subjects with respect to speaking-up actions were observed in any of the three events. The five most frequently mentioned hurdles to speaking up were uncertainty about the issue, stereotypes of others on the team, familiarity with the individual, respect for experience, and the repercussion expected. The five most frequently mentioned enablers were realizing the speaking-up problem, having a speaking-up rubric, certainty about theAbstract : Purpose: The authors addressed three questions: (1) Would a realistic simulation-based educational intervention improve speaking-up behaviors of practicing nontrainee anesthesiologists? (2) What would those speaking-up behaviors be when the issue emanated from a surgeon, a circulating nurse, or an anesthesiologist colleague? (3) What were the hurdles and enablers to speaking up in those situations? Method: The authors conducted a simulation-based randomized controlled experiment from March 2008–February 2011 at the Center for Medical Simulation, Boston, Massachusetts. During a mandatory crisis management course for practicing nontrainee anesthesiologists from five Boston institutions, a 50-minute workshop on speaking up was conducted for intervention (n = 35) and control (n = 36) groups before or after, respectively, an experimental scenario with three events. The authors analyzed videos of the experimental scenarios and debriefing sessions. Results: No statistically significant differences between the intervention and control group subjects with respect to speaking-up actions were observed in any of the three events. The five most frequently mentioned hurdles to speaking up were uncertainty about the issue, stereotypes of others on the team, familiarity with the individual, respect for experience, and the repercussion expected. The five most frequently mentioned enablers were realizing the speaking-up problem, having a speaking-up rubric, certainty about the consequences of speaking up, familiarity with the individual, and having a second opinion or getting help. Conclusions: An educational intervention alone was ineffective in improving the speaking-up behaviors of practicing nontrainee anesthesiologists. Other measures to change speaking-up behaviors could be implemented and might improve patient safety. Abstract : Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text. … (more)
- Is Part Of:
- Academic medicine. Volume 91:Number 4(2016)
- Journal:
- Academic medicine
- Issue:
- Volume 91:Number 4(2016)
- Issue Display:
- Volume 91, Issue 4 (2016)
- Year:
- 2016
- Volume:
- 91
- Issue:
- 4
- Issue Sort Value:
- 2016-0091-0004-0000
- Page Start:
- Page End:
- Publication Date:
- 2016-04
- Subjects:
- Medical education -- Periodicals
Medical policy -- Periodicals
Medical personnel -- Periodicals
Periodicals
610.711 - Journal URLs:
- http://gateway.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&MODE=ovid&PAGE=toc&D=ovft&AN=00001888-000000000-00000 ↗
http://www.academicmedicine.org ↗
http://www.academicmedicine.org/contents-by-date.0.shtml ↗
http://journals.lww.com ↗ - DOI:
- 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001033 ↗
- Languages:
- English
- ISSNs:
- 1040-2446
- Deposit Type:
- Legaldeposit
- View Content:
- Available online (eLD content is only available in our Reading Rooms) ↗
- Physical Locations:
- British Library DSC - 0570.513500
British Library DSC - BLDSS-3PM
British Library HMNTS - ELD Digital store - Ingest File:
- 5229.xml