Umeå University's logo

INTRODUCTION: Telemedicine provides opportunities for access to health care in remote and underserved areas. In parts of northern rural Sweden telemedicine is used to connect a remote physician by a video-conference system to an emergency room, staffed by nurses during on-call hours. This can be called 'tele-emergency'. Patient participation, often described as mutual information exchange, a trustful relationship and involvement in decision-making, is challenged in emergency care by short encounters, deteriorating patients and a stressful work situation. Nevertheless, patient participation may be important for the patients' experience. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) have been identified as 'gatekeepers' for patient participation, therefore putting their perspective in focus is important. As emergency care in rural areas is increasingly turning toward telemedicine, patient participation in tele-emergencies needs to be better understood. The aim of this study was to explore and characterise HCPs' perspectives of patient participation in tele-emergencies in northern rural Sweden.

METHODS: A qualitative design based on interviews was used. HCPs working in cottage hospitals in northern rural Sweden were included. Semi-structured interviews were performed, first, in multidisciplinary groups of three informants. Later, because of limited experience of tele-emergencies in the groups, individual interviews with HCPs with substantial experience were added. A qualitative content analysis of the interview transcripts was conducted.

RESULTS: A total of 44 HCPs from northern inland Sweden participated in the interviews. The content analysis resulted in two themes, six categories and 19 subcategories. Theme 1, 'To see, understand, and to build trust through the digital barrier', contains descriptions of the interpersonal relationship between the patient and the HCPs, and the challenges when interacting with the patient during a tele-emergency. The informants also described a need for boundaries between the professional team and the patient. The categories in theme 1 are 'understanding the patient's point of view', 'building a trustful relationship', and 'needing a private space without the patient'. Theme 2, 'The (im)balance of power - tele-emergency reinforces the positions', mirrors the power asymmetry in the patient-professional relationship, and the potential impact of the tele-emergency on the different roles. Tele-emergencies were described as a risk that potentially could weaken the patient's position, but also as providing an opportunity to share power. Categories in theme 2 are 'medical conditions limit patient participation', 'patient involvement in decision-making requires understanding' and 'the inferior patient and the superior professionals'.

CONCLUSION: This study sheds light on patient participation in tele-emergencies in a remote rural setting from the HCP's perspective. The tele-emergency set-up affected patient participation by interfering with familiar patient-HCP relationships and changing group dynamics in interactions with the patient. Due to the extensive changes of the conditions for patient participation imposed in tele-emergencies, suggestions for actions improving patient participation are made.

Background: In northern rural Sweden, telemedicine is used to improve access to healthcare and to provide patient-centered care. In emergency care during on-call hours, video-conference systems are used to connect the physicians to the rest of the team – creating ‘distributed teams’. Patient participation is a core competency for healthcare professionals. Knowledge about how distributed teamwork affects patient participation is missing. The aim was to investigate if and how teamwork affecting patient participation, as well as clinicians’ perceptions regarding shared decision-making differ between co-located and distributed emergency teams.

Methods: In an observational study with a randomized cross-over design, healthcare professionals (n = 51) participated in authentic teams (n = 17) in two scripted simulated emergency scenarios with a standardized patient: one as a co-located team and the other as a distributed team. Team performances were filmed and observed by independent raters using the PIC-ET tool to rate patient participation behavior. The participants individually filled out the Dyadic OPTION questionnaire after the respective scenarios to measure perceptions of shared decision-making. Scores in both instruments were translated to percentage of a maximum score. The observational data between the two settings were compared using linear mixed-effects regression models and the self-reported questionnaire data were compared using one-way ANOVA. Neither the participants nor the observers were blinded to the allocations.

Results: A significant difference in observer rated overall patient participation behavior was found, mean 51.1 (± 11.5) % for the co-located teams vs 44.7 (± 8.6) % for the distributed teams (p = 0.02). In the PIC-ET tool category ‘Sharing power’, the scores decreased from 14.4 (± 12.4) % in the co-located teams to 2 (± 4.4) % in the distributed teams (p = 0.001). Co-located teams scored in mean 60.5% (± 14.4) when self-assessing shared decision-making, vs 55.8% (± 15.1) in the distributed teams (p = 0.03).

Conclusions: Team behavior enabling patient participation was found decreased in distributed teams, especially regarding sharing power with the patient. This finding was also mirrored in the self-assessments of the healthcare professionals. This study highlights the risk of an increased power asymmetry between patients and distributed emergency teams and can serve as a basis for further research, education, and quality improvement.

Background: For five years our emergency ward has trained non-technical skills using trauma scenarios in a simulator environment. Reflection-on-action was accomplished by 60 minutes video-facilitated structured debriefing. The aim of this study was to explore whether teams trained in non-technical skills are more efficient in the management of severely wounded patients.

Summary of work: The standardized trauma patient scenario started with an ambulance crew being called

to a location outside the hospital. Patient care was followed from the site of trauma, in the ambulance and

in the emergency room. When the hand-over was finished, the condition was worsened. All ambulance crew and trauma team communication were recorded, synchronised in F-REX and key events time-logged. Nineteen teams with 144 participants were included in the study.

Summary of results: 56% of the participants had trained non-technical skills. 78% of those with ontechnical

skills training, and 62% of those without previous simulator based training, estimated themselves to have appropriate training for the task. The time from the induced worsened condition until the trauma team had assessed airways, breathing, circulation and disabilities were 74±39, 104±45, 172±85 and 223±194 s respectively. No significant effect on the medical performance on basis of previous training in non-technical skills could be detected. Further video analysis is required to more deeply understand the links between teamwork and medical performance.

Conclusions: Trauma team training in CRM principles improves the self-confidence in trauma teams, but not the medical performance.

Take-home messages: Improved non-technical skills might be difficult to translate into improvements in technical skills.

OBJECTIVES: The assessment of situation awareness (SA), team performance and task performance in a simulation training session requires reliable and feasible measurement techniques. The objectives of this study were to test the Airways-Breathing-Circulation-Disability-Exposure (ABCDE) checklist and the Team Emergency Assessment Measure (TEAM) for inter-rater reliability, as well as the application of Situation Awareness Global Assessment Technique (SAGAT) for feasibility and internal consistency.

DESIGN: Methodological approach.

SETTING: Data collection during team training using full-scale simulation at a university clinical training centre. The video-recorded scenarios were rated independently by four raters.

PARTICIPANTS: 55 medical students aged 22-40 years in their fourth year of medical studies, during the clerkship in anaesthesiology and critical care medicine, formed 23 different teams. All students answered the SAGAT questionnaires, and of these students, 24 answered the follow-up postsimulation questionnaire (PSQ). TEAM and ABCDE were scored by four professionals.

MEASURES: The ABCDE and TEAM were tested for inter-rater reliability. The feasibility of SAGAT was tested using PSQ. SAGAT was tested for internal consistency both at an individual level (SAGAT) and a team level (Team Situation Awareness Global Assessment Technique (TSAGAT)).

RESULTS: The intraclass correlation was 0.54/0.83 (single/average measurements) for TEAM and 0.55/0.83 for ABCDE. According to the PSQ, the items in SAGAT were rated as relevant to the scenario by 96% of the participants. Cronbach's alpha for SAGAT/TSAGAT for the two scenarios was 0.80/0.83 vs 0.62/0.76, and normed χ² was 1.72 vs 1.62.

CONCLUSION: Task performance, team performance and SA could be purposefully measured, and the reliability of the measurements was good.

Background Within trauma teams, effective communication is necessary to ensure safe and secure care of the patient. Deficiencies in communication are one of the most important factors leading to patient harm. Time is an essential factor for rapid and efficient disposal of trauma teams to increase patients’ survival and prevent morbidity. Trauma team training plays an important role in improving the team’s performance, while the leader of the trauma team faces the challenge of coordinating and optimizing this performance.

Aim The overall aim of this thesis was to analyse how members of trauma teams communicated verbally and non-verbally during trauma team training in emergency settings, and how the leaders were positioned or positioned themselves in relation to other team members. The aim was also to investigate the use of a communication tool, closed-loop communication, and the time taken to make a decision to go to surgery in relation to specific factors in the team as well as the leader’s position.

Methods Eighteen trauma teams were audio and video recorded and analysed during regular in situ training in the emergency room at a hospital in northern Sweden. Each team consisted of six participants: two physicians, two nurses, and two enrolled nurses, giving a total of 108 participants. In Study I, the communication between the team members was analysed using a method inspired by discourse psychology and Strauss’ concept of “negotiated orders”. In Study II, the communication in the teams was categorized and quantified into “call-outs” and “closed-loop communication”. The analysis included the team members’ background data and results from Study I concerning the leader’s position in the team. Poisson regression analyses were performed to assess closed-loop communication (outcome variable) in relation to background data and leadership style (independent exploratory variables). In Study III, quantitative content analysis was used to categorize and organize the team members’ positions and the leaders’ non-verbal communication in the video-recorded material. Time sequences of leaders’ non-verbal communications in terms of gaze direction, speech time, and gestures were identified separately to the level of seconds and presented as proportions (%) of the total training time. The leaders’ vocal nuances were also categorized. The analysis in Study IV was based on the team members’ background data, the results from Study I concerning the leader’s position in the team, and the categorization and quantification of team communication from Study II. Cox proportional hazard regression was performed to assess the time taken to make a decision to go to surgery (outcome variable) in relation to background data, the leader’s position, and closed-loop communication (independent variables).

Results The findings in Study I showed that team leaders used coercive, educational, discussing, and negotiating repertoires to convey knowledge and create common goals of priorities in work. The repertoires were used flexibly and changed depending on the urgency of the situation and the interaction between the team members. When using these repertoires, the team leaders were positioned or positioned themselves in either an authoritarian or an egalitarian position. Study II showed that closed-loop communication was used to a limited extent during the trauma team training. Call-out was more frequently used by team members with eleven or more years in the profession and experience of trauma within the past year, compared with team members with no such experience. Scandinavian origin, an egalitarian team leader and previous experience of two or more structured trauma courses were associated with more frequent use of closed-loop communication compared to those with no such origin, leader style, or experience. Study III showed that team leaders who gained control over the “inner circle” used gaze direction, vocal nuances, verbal commands, and gestures to solidify their verbal messages. Leaders who spoke in a hesitant voice or were silent expressed ambiguity in their non-verbal communication, and other team members took over the leader's tasks. Study IV showed that the team leader’s closed-loop communication was important for making the decision to go to surgery. In 8 of 16 teams, decisions on surgery were taken within the timeframe of the trauma team training. Call-outs and closed-loop communication initiated by the team members were significantly associated with a lack of decision to go to surgery.

Conclusions The leaders used different repertoires to convey and gain knowledge in order to create common goal in the teams. These repertoires were both verbal and non-verbal, and flexible. They shifted depending on the urgency of the situation and the interaction within the team. Depending on the chosen repertoire, the leaders were positioned or positioned themselves as egalitarian and/or authoritarian leaders. In urgent situations, the leaders used closed-loop communication as part of a coercive repertoire, and called out commands and directed requests to specific team members. This repertoire was important for making the decision to go to surgery; the more closed-loop communication initiated by the leader, the more likely that the team would make a decision to go to surgery. Problems arose if the leaders were positioned or positioned themselves as either an authoritarian or an egalitarian leader. The leaders needed to be flexible and use different repertories in order to move the teamwork forward. It was notable that higher numbers of call-outs and closed-loop communication initiated by the team members decreased the probability of making the decision to go to surgery.

BACKGROUND: There is widespread consensus on the importance of safe and secure communication in healthcare, especially in trauma care where time is a limiting factor. Although non-verbal communication has an impact on communication between individuals, there is only limited knowledge of how trauma team leaders communicate. The purpose of this study was to investigate how trauma team members are positioned in the emergency room, and how leaders communicate in terms of gaze direction, vocal nuances, and gestures during trauma team training.

METHODS: Eighteen trauma teams were audio and video recorded during trauma team training in the emergency department of a hospital in northern Sweden. Quantitative content analysis was used to categorize the team members' positions and the leaders' non-verbal communication: gaze direction, vocal nuances, and gestures. The quantitative data were interpreted in relation to the specific context. Time sequences of the leaders' gaze direction, speech time, and gestures were identified separately and registered as time (seconds) and proportions (%) of the total training time.

RESULTS: The team leaders who gained control over the most important area in the emergency room, the "inner circle", positioned themselves as heads over the team, using gaze direction, gestures, vocal nuances, and verbal commands that solidified their verbal message. Changes in position required both attention and collaboration. Leaders who spoke in a hesitant voice, or were silent, expressed ambiguity in their non-verbal communication: and other team members took over the leader's tasks.

DISCUSSION:

In teams where the leader had control over the inner circle, the members seemed to have an awareness of each other's roles and tasks, knowing when in time and where in space these tasks needed to be executed. Deviations in the leaders' communication increased the ambiguity in the communication, which had consequences for the teamwork. Communication cannot be taken for granted; it needs to be practiced regularly just as technical skills need to be trained. Simulation training provides healthcare professionals the opportunity to put both verbal and non-verbal communication in focus, in order to improve patient safety.

CONCLUSIONS: Non-verbal communication plays a decisive role in the interaction between the trauma team members, and so both verbal and non-verbal communication should be in focus in trauma team training. This is even more important for inexperienced leaders, since vague non-verbal communication reinforces ambiguity and can lead to errors.