AMA Journal of Ethics®

Illuminating the art of medicine

Journal of Ethics Header

AMA Journal of Ethics®

Illuminating the art of medicine

Virtual Mentor. June 2013, Volume 15, Number 6: 529-533.

Medicine and Society

  • Print
  • |
  • View PDF

Hierarchical Medical Teams and the Science of Teamwork

To succeed, medical teams must work to develop team cognition and coordination, a cooperative spirit, and active fostering of teamwork.

Ashley M. Hughes and Eduardo Salas, PhD

The current view is that medical students, residents, fellows, and doctors alike are taught to think, feel, and behave in ways that hinder participation in care teams. Medical students internalize the hierarchy as early as their undergraduate classes [1]. Rather than enhancing team performance, these internal power hierarchies diminish the effectiveness of these critical work teams.

Hierarchy in medical teams, as defined by Liberatore and Nydick [2], comprises a set of integrated levels within which members are ranked both by their disciplines and levels of authority. Attempts to assemble working groups can be hampered by problems in team cognition and cooperation, a lack of behaviors that foster teamwork, and poor coordination. Here, we will outline major contributors to team breakdowns in health care and then offer recommendations for being the key team advocate for patient care.

What Is Teamwork?

Medical teams include two or more people with shared goals and values [3, 4] who base their interactions on certain desired behaviors known as teamwork competencies [5]. More specifically, teamwork consists of the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that can inhibit or promote team progress in attaining shared goals. Essentially, these competencies fuel, drive, and explain the way a team behaves.

Over the past few decades, many attempts have been made to better understand teamwork [6, 7]. Major problems in hierarchical medical teams stem from deficits in team cooperation, coaching (efforts to foster teamwork), cognition, and coordination.

Cooperative Spirit and Coaching

Many medical teams’ lack of cooperative spirit—the attitudes and beliefs that motivate team action—and coaching skills leads to conflict and tensions among staff. As an example of the lack of cooperative spirit in many health care teams, research on quality improvement initiatives such as implementation of a Rapid Response System reports physician resistance to change and ridicule of those using new systems [8, 9]. This lack of motivation to work together can hurt medical teams, making frontline clinicians less likely to admit the need for help and advocate for patient care [10].

Teams without effective coaching—actions team members take to foster positive social climate and improve performance (e.g., by giving feedback) [11]—fail to learn from their mistakes [12]. Interprofessional rounds have been found to be necessary for cross-disciplinary care and vital to promoting patient safety [13]; however, evidence suggests that what should be participatory, collaborative exercises are heavily affected by hierarchy, dampening interdisciplinary exchange [14].

Cognition and Coordination

Team cognition (when team members are on “the same page”) comprises knowledge of the ability and function (e.g., roles and responsibilities) of each team member and the ability to retrieve or act on this information while the team is in action [15]. There is evidence to document that teams that have shared cognition coordinate more effectively and efficiently, consequently leading to improved team performance [16]. Members of medical teams often lack knowledge of each other’s responsibilities [17], which can cause misunderstandings. A lack of team cognition makes the team unable to learn, self-regulate, and coordinate with other team members and other teams [7]. The ability to anticipate team members’ needs before it is communicated can greatly improve coordination and effective communication and create a safer, more effective team [18].

Coordination is the subsequent enactment of team shared cognitions [16]. More specifically, implicit coordination is coordination that utilizes shared mental models, a form of team cognition, to perform tasks and adapt to new situations without the need to communicate while working [19-21]. An example of a measure of failure in team coordination is increased time from decision to incision in an emergent cesarean section [22], which can result in adverse infant and maternal outcomes. The team’s enhanced coordination makes this improvement in patient safety possible by increasing the efficiency of the team in action. By fostering a punitive, power-driven social climate, medical hierarchy hinders team cognition and therefore effective coordination for patient care.

Building the Team

Promote team cohesion and collaboration. As mentioned earlier, coaching refers to a team member’s efforts to support social climate, take initiative, and provide feedback and resources such as medical supplies or tools to the team [9]. This means involving other team members in decisions. Using coaching behaviors, such as structured, nonpunitive feedback, to foster a positive social climate can encourage the exchange of information necessary to learn, understand, and problem solve, despite difficulties in medical team hierarchies.

Feedback—seeking, providing, and receiving performance-related information (e.g., praise or positive criticism) [23]—is key to promoting collaboration. Feedback that is positively framed and timely and that emphasizes a behavior or process is most effective [24]. Team members should not be criticized, blamed, or personally attacked for their mistakes. This approach is intended to improve the way teammates interact, and more importantly, how they feel toward each other.

Team debriefs. Debriefs or after-action reviews are an effective technique [24] for reviewing a team’s performance through reflection, planning, and discussion [25] after a performance session (e.g., surgery) to learn “from experience” [26]. Tannenbaum and Cerasoli [24] identified four key features of an effective debrief: active participation from all team members, a focus on developmentally improving team performance rather than assigning blame, discussion of specific events rather than general team performance, and information from at least two sources. These supportive processes encourage interprofessional collaboration and knowledge sharing and can reduce team conflict [27].

Conclusion

Without involvement from the entire team, quality patient care simply is not possible. Multiple teams and team members need to come together to solve complex patient problems, conduct rounds, and respond to patient emergencies. Without Peter Pronovost listening to and involving nursing staff in solving patient care problems, for example, checklist use to improve patient care would not have been developed [28]. We advocate engaging medical students, residents, and medical facility staff alike for problem solving and listening to what other team members have to say. Other tools and interventions for addressing teamwork problems in medical teams include morbidity and mortality conferences [29], interpersonal and problem-solving team-building exercises [30], interprofessional education [31], and team training [32]. Overall, building the team in these ways can lead to greater team satisfaction, flattened hierarchies, and improved communication among team members [30].



References

  1. Hall P, Weaver L. Interdisciplinary education and teamwork: a long and winding road. Med Educ. 2001;35(9):867-875.
  2. Liberatore MJ, Nydick RL. The analytic hierarchy process in medical and health care decision making: a literature review. Eur J Oper Res. 2008;189(1):194-207.
  3. Dyer WG. Team Building: Issues and Alternatives. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1977.
  4. Salas E, Dickinson TL, Converse SA, et al. Toward an understanding of team performance and training. In: Swezey RW, Salas E, eds. Teams: Their Training and Performance. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing; 1992: 3-29.
  5. Salas E, Stagl KC, Burke CS, Goodwin GF. Fostering team effectiveness in organizations: Toward an integrative theoretical framework. Nebr Symp Motiv. 2007;52:185-243.
  6. Salas E, Sims DE, Burke CS. Is there a “Big Five” in teamwork? Small Group Res. 2005;36(5):555-599.
  7. Salas E., Rosen MA, Burke CS, Goodwin GF. The wisdom of collectives in organizations: an update of the teamwork competencies. In: Salas E, Goodwin GF, eds. Team Effectiveness in Complex Organizations: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives and Approaches. New York: Taylor and Francis; 2008.
  8. Salamonson Y, van Heere B, Everett B, et al. Voices from the floor: nurses’ perceptions of the medical emergency team. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2006;22(3):138-143.
  9. Offner PJ, Heit J, Roberts R. Implementation of a rapid response team decreases cardiac arrest outside of the Intensive Care Unit. J Trauma. 2007;62(5):1223-1227.
  10. Walker S, McGeer A, Simor AE, Armstrong-Evans M, Loeb M. Why are antibiotics prescribed for asymptomatic bacteriuria in institutionalized elderly people?: A qualitative study of physicians’ and nurses’ perceptions. CMAJ. 2000;163(3):273-277.
  11. DeChurch LA, Hiller NJ, Murase T, Doty D, Salas E. Leadership across levels: levels of leaders and their levels of impact. Leadersh Q. 2010;21(6):1069-1085.
  12. Morgeson FP, DeRue DS, Karam EP. Leadership in teams: a functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. J Manage. 2010;36(1):5-39.
  13. Chang JH, Vines E, Bertsch H, et al. The impact of a multidisciplinary breast cancer center on recommendations for patient management. Cancer Med. 2001;91(7):1231-1237.
  14. Reeves S, Rice K, Conn LG, et al. Interprofessional interaction, negotiation and non-negotiation on general internal medicine wards. J Interprof Care. 2009;23(6):633-645.
  15. Salas E, Rosen MA, Burke CS, Nicholson D, Howse WR. Markers for enhancing team cognition in complex environments: the power of team performance diagnosis. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2007;78(5 Suppl):B77-B85.
  16. Salas E, Fiore SM, eds. Team Cognition: Understanding the Factors that Drive Process and Performance. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2004.
  17. Gum L, Greenhill J, Dix K. Clinical simulation in maternity (CSIM): interprofessional learning through simulation team training. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19(5);e19.
  18. Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E. Team performance and training in complex environments: Recent findings from applied research. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 1998;7(3):83-87.
  19. Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E, Converse SA. Cognitive psychology and team training: Training shared mental models and complex systems. Hum Factors Society Bulletin. 1990;33(12):1-4.
  20. Entin EE, Serfaty D. Adaptive team coordination. Hum Factors. 1999;41(2):312-325.
  21. Rico R, Sánchez-Manzanares M, Gil F, Gibson C. Team implicit coordination processes: A team knowledge-based approach. Acad Manage Rev. 2008;33(1):163-184.
  22. Nielsen PE, Goldman MB, Mann S, Shapiro DE, et al. Effects of teamwork training on adverse outcomes and process of care in labor and delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109(1):48-55.
  23. Dickinson TL, McIntyre RM. A conceptual framework for teamwork measurement. In: Brannick MT, Salas E, Prince C, eds. Team Performance Assessment and Measurement. Malwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1997: 19-43.
  24. Tannenbaum SI, Cerasoli CP. Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? A meta-analysis. Hum Factors. 2012;55(1):231-245.
  25. Morrison JE, Meliza LL. Foundations of the after action review process (No. IDA/HQ-D2332). Institute for Defense Analysis, Alexandria, VA; 1999.
  26. Darling MJ, Parry CS. After-action reviews: linking reflection and planning in a learning practice. Reflections-Society for Organizational Learning. 2001;3(2):64-72.
  27. Zaccaro SJ, Rittman AL, Marks MA. Team leadership. Leadersh Q. 2002;12(4):451-483.
  28. Gawande A. The Checklist Manifesto: How To Get Things Right. New York: Metropolitan Books; 2010.
  29. Szekendi MK, Barnard C, Creamer J, et al. Using patient safety morbidity and mortality conferences to promote transparency and a culture of safety. Jt Comm Jon Qual Patient Saf. 2010;36(1):3-2AP.
  30. Amos MA, Hu J, Herrick CA. The impact of team building on communication and job satisfaction of a nursing staff. J Nurses Staff Dev. 2005;21(1):10-16.
  31. Zhang C, Thompson S, Miller C. A review of simulation-based interprofessional education. Sim Nurs. 2010;7(4):e117-e126.
  32. Salas E, Diaz Granados D, Weaver SJ, King H. Does team training work? Principles for health care. Acad Emerg Med. 2008;15(11):1002-1009.

Ashley M. Hughes is a PhD student in the Applied Experimental Human Factors psychology program at the University of Central Florida in Orlando, where she received her bachelor’s in psychology in 2010. She conducts research in the Institute for Simulation and Training, and her main interests are team training, simulation-based training, and teamwork, primarily in medical settings.

Eduardo Salas, PhD, is trustee chair, a professor of psychology, and director of the Human-Systems Integration Research Department in the Institute for Simulation and Training at the University of Central Florida in Orlando. Previously, he was director of UCF’s Applied Experimental and Human Factors psychology PhD program and was head of the Training Technology Development Branch of the Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division of the United States Navy.

Leadership and Team-Based Care, June 2013

Team Response to Internal Disagreement about Professional Conduct, June 2013

Medical Hierarchy and Medical Garb, June 2013

One Leadership Style Does Not Fit All, June 2013

Responsibility for Patients after the Handoff, May 2012

Transitions of Care: Putting the Pieces Together, February 2013

Perceptions of Teamwork in the OR: Roles and Expectations, January 2010

The viewpoints expressed on this site are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the AMA.