Understanding teamwork in rapidly deployed interprofessional teams in intensive and acute care: a systematic review of reviews. [Dataset]

Abstract

This systematic review of reviews examines the current evidence base for successful teamwork in rapidly deployed interprofessional teams in intensive and acute care settings, by assessing systematic reviews of empirical studies to inform future deployments and support of rapidly formed clinical teams. This study identified 18 systematic reviews for further analysis. Utilising an integrative narrative synthesis process supported by thematic coding and graphical network analysis, 13 themes were found to dominate the literature on teams and teamwork in inter-professional and inter-disciplinary teams. This approach was chosen to make the selection process more transparent and enable the thematic clusters in the reviewed papers to be presented visually and codifying four factors that structure the literature on inter-professional teams (i.e., team-internal procedures and dynamics, communicative processes, organisational and team extrinsic influences on teams, and lastly patient and staff outcomes). Practically, the findings suggest that managers and team leaders in fluid and ad-hoc inter-professional healthcare teams in an intensive care environment need to pay attention to reducing pre-existing occupational identities and power-dynamics by emphasizing skill mix, establishing combined workspaces and break areas, clarifying roles and responsibilities, facilitating formal information exchange and developing informal opportunities for communication. The results may guide the further analysis of factors that affect the performance of inter-professional teams in emergency and crisis deployment.

Citation

SCHILLING, S., ARMAOU, M., MORRISON, Z., CARDING, P., BRICKNELL, M. and CONNELLY, V. 2022. Understanding teamwork in rapidly deployed interprofessional teams in intensive and acute care: a systematic review of reviews. [Dataset] PLoS ONE [online], 17(8), article e0272942. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272942#sec031

• Acceptance Date: Jul 31, 2022
• Online Publication Date: Aug 18, 2022
• Publication Date: Aug 31, 2022
• Deposit Date: Sep 1, 2022
• Publicly Available Date: Sep 1, 2022
• Publisher: Public Library of Science
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272942
• Keywords: Acute and intensive care capacities; COVID-19; Skilled healthcare; Systematic reviews
• Public URL: https://rgu-repository.worktribe.com/output/1742104
• Publisher URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0272942#sec031
• Related Public URLs: https://rgu-repository.worktribe.com/output/1742051
• Type of Data: 5 DOCX files, 1 EXLSX and accompanying TXT file.
• Collection Date: Jan 31, 2020
• Collection Method: Exploratory searches of the literature were conducted using MEDLINE, Global health, CINAHL, and APA PsycINFO in January 2021, with the aim of testing different search strings, finding 179,205 results. Search strategy refinement was developed in consultation with expert research librarians and finalised upon discussion with the project team. The final search string was narrowed to ((team* or cooperation) and (health* or clinic* or acute or medic* or hospital or inter* or multi*) and review). Subsequently, a definitive literature search was conducted for articles published from January 2000 until February 2021, using 7 databases (MEDLINE, Global health, CINAHL, APA PsycINFO, Business Source Complete, SCOPUS and Web of Science). The selection included only review articles of peer-reviewed empirical studies, published in peer reviewed journals, written in English, using qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods. In addition, articles were required to meet three out of four criteria: i) focus on inter-professional/ inter-disciplinary/ multi-disciplinary teams in a healthcare setting; ii) include at least one of intensive emergency, acute and critical care settings; iii) discuss teamwork; iv) include rapidly convened teams. Studies were excluded if they did not review empirical studies, (e.g., book reviews, case reviews, clinical audits, editorials were excluded) or were singularly focused on mono-professional environments (e.g., mental health, oncology, primary, paediatric care, rheumatology, pharmacology, radiology). Similarly, reviews focusing on training or interventions were excluded if the focus of the study was on simulated or classroom- based training environments. Whilst acknowledging their utility in multi-disciplinary and inter-professional environments, reviews focusing on interventions were also excluded, due to the requirement for long-term planning involved in scenario development. The thematic data was independently extracted by two authors (Author 1 and Author 2) who are trained coders and who met to reconcile any differences through discussion. Coding was conducted thematically using NVivo 12 and NVivo for Mac (release 1.5.1) and inductive themes grouped iteratively according to the most frequent higher and lower order themes.