Book contents
- Quality Management in Intensive CareA Practical Guide
- Quality Management in Intensive Care
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Section 1 Quality management of patient care
- Section 2 Quality management of the ICU
- 12 Tools to improve patient safety and adverse events
- 13 Clinical data management
- 14 Electronic ICU management systems
- 15 ICU staff
- 16 Severity scoring, improved care?
- 17 Implementation of evidence-based practice
- 18 Addressing barriers for change in clinical practice
- 19 Teambuilding
- 20 Conflict management in the intensive care unit
- 21 From polio to hospital-wide care
- 22 Patient and family satisfaction
- 23 Follow-up after intensive care
- 24 In situsmall-scale simulation
- Section 3 Quality management on the national (and international) level
- Epilogue
- Index
- References
19 - Teambuilding
from Section 2 - Quality management of the ICU
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2016
By
Book contents
- Quality Management in Intensive CareA Practical Guide
- Quality Management in Intensive Care
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Section 1 Quality management of patient care
- Section 2 Quality management of the ICU
- 12 Tools to improve patient safety and adverse events
- 13 Clinical data management
- 14 Electronic ICU management systems
- 15 ICU staff
- 16 Severity scoring, improved care?
- 17 Implementation of evidence-based practice
- 18 Addressing barriers for change in clinical practice
- 19 Teambuilding
- 20 Conflict management in the intensive care unit
- 21 From polio to hospital-wide care
- 22 Patient and family satisfaction
- 23 Follow-up after intensive care
- 24 In situsmall-scale simulation
- Section 3 Quality management on the national (and international) level
- Epilogue
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Quality Management in Intensive CareA Practical Guide, pp. 152 - 159Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2016
References
Salas, E., Rosen, M.A., King, H. Managing teams managing crises: principles of teamwork to improve patient safety in the Emergency Room and beyond. Theor Issues Ergonomics Sci. 2007; 8(5): 381–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuckman, B.W. Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychol Bull. 1965; 63: 384–399.Google Scholar
Baggs, J.G., Ryan, S.A., Phelps, C.E., Richeson, J.F., Johnson, J.E. The association between interdisciplinary collaboration and patient outcomes in a medical intensive care unit. Heart Lung. 1992; 21(1): 18–24.Google Scholar
Wheelan, S.A., Burchill, C.N., Tilin, F. The link between teamwork and patients’ outcomes in intensive care units. Am J Crit Care. 2003; 12(6): 527–534.Google Scholar
Schmutz, J., Manser, T. Do team processes really have an effect on clinical performance? A systematic literature review. Brit J Anaesth. 2013; 110: 529–544.Google Scholar
Manser, T. Teamwork and patient safety in dynamic domains of healthcare: a review of the literature. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. 2009; 53(2): 143–151.Google Scholar
Guzzo, R.A., Shea, G.P. Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations. In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 3. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1992: 269–313.Google Scholar
Helmreich, R.L., Foushee, H.C. Why crew resource management? Empirical and theoretical bases of human factors training in aviation. In: Weiner, E.L., Kanki, B.G., Helmreich, R.L., eds. Cockpit Resource Management. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1993: 3–46.Google Scholar
Anderson, N.R., West, M.A. Measuring climate for work group innovation: development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 1998; 19(3): 235–258.Google Scholar
Kolbe, M., Burtscher, M.J., Wacker, J., et al. Speaking up is related to better team performance in simulated anesthesia inductions: an observational study. Anesth Analg. 2012; 115(5): 1099–1108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edmondson, A.C. Speaking up in the operating room: how team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams. J Manage Stud. 2003; 40(6): 1419–1452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, S., Lin, S., Falwell, A., Gaba, D., Baker, L. Relationship of safety climate and safety performance in hospitals. Health Serv Res. 2009; 44(2 Pt 1): 399–421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reader, T.W., Flin, R., Mearns, K., Cuthbertson, B.H. Interdisciplinary communication in the intensive care unit. Brit J Anaesth. 2007; 98(3): 347–352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zwarenstein, M., Bryant, W. Interventions to promote collaboration between nurses and doctors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2000; (2): CD000072.Google ScholarPubMed
Thomas, E.J., Sexton, J.B., Helmreich, R.L. Discrepant attitudes about teamwork among critical care nurses and physicians. Crit Care Med. 2003; 31(3): 956–959.Google Scholar
Martin, J.S., Ummenhofer, W., Manser, T., Spirig, R. Interprofessional collaboration among nurses and physicians: making a difference in patient outcome. Swiss Med Wkly. 2010; 140: w13062.Google ScholarPubMed
Manser, T., Foster, S. Effective handover communication: an overview of research and improvement efforts. Best Prac Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2011; 25(2): 181–191.Google Scholar
Iedema, R. Creating safety by strengthening clinicians’ capacity for reflexivity. BMJ Quality Saf. 2011; 20(Suppl 1): i83–i86.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, M., Veldkamp, C. The usefulness and feasibility of a reflexivity method to improve clinical handover. J Eval Clin Prac. 2007; 13(1): 109–115.Google Scholar
Brown, M.S., Ohlinger, J., Rusk, C., Delmore, P., Ittmann, P. Implementing potentially better practices for multidisciplinary team building: creating a neonatal intensive care unit culture of collaboration. Pediatrics. 2003; 111(4): 7.Google Scholar
West, M., Lyubovnikova, J.R. Real teams or pseudo teams? The changing landscape needs a better map. Ind Organ Psychol. 2012; 5(1): 25–28.Google Scholar