Efeitos a longo prazo dos briefings e debriefings perioperatórios sobre o clima de trabalho em equipe: um estudo de métodos mistos
Abstract
Introduction
To evaluate the long‐term (5 years) effects of perioperative briefing and debriefing on team climate. We explored the barriers and facilitators of the performance of perioperative briefing and debriefing to explain its effects on team climate and to make recommendations for further improvement of surgical safety tools.
Methods
A mixed‐method evaluation study was carried out amongst surgical staff at a tertiary care university hospital with 593‐bed capacity in the Netherlands. Thirteen surgical teams were included. Team climate inventory and a standardised evaluation questionnaire were used to measure team climate (primary outcome) and experiences with perioperative briefing and debriefing (secondary outcome), respectively. Thirteen surgical team members participated in a semi‐structured interview to explore barriers and facilitators of the performance of perioperative briefing and debriefing.
Results
The dimension “participative safety” increased significantly 5 years after the implementation of perioperative briefing and debriefing (P = .02 (95% confidence interval 1.18‐9.25)). Perioperative briefing and debriefing were considered a useful method for improving and sustaining participative safety and cooperation within surgical teams. The positive aspects of briefing were that shared agreements made at the start of the day and that briefing enabled participants to work as a team. Participants were less satisfied regarding debriefing, mostly because of the lack of a sense of urgency and a lack of a safe culture for feedback. Briefing and debriefing had less influence on efficiency.
Conclusions
Although
Abstract
Introduction
To evaluate the long‐term (5 years) effects of perioperative briefing and debriefing on team climate. We explored the barriers and facilitators of the performance of perioperative briefing and debriefing to explain its effects on team climate and to make recommendations for further improvement of surgical safety tools.
Methods
A mixed‐method evaluation study was carried out amongst surgical staff at a tertiary care university hospital with 593‐bed capacity in the Netherlands. Thirteen surgical teams were included. Team climate inventory and a standardised evaluation questionnaire were used to measure team climate (primary outcome) and experiences with perioperative briefing and debriefing (secondary outcome), respectively. Thirteen surgical team members participated in a semi‐structured interview to explore barriers and facilitators of the performance of perioperative briefing and debriefing.
Results
The dimension “participative safety” increased significantly 5 years after the implementation of perioperative briefing and debriefing (P = .02 (95% confidence interval 1.18‐9.25)). Perioperative briefing and debriefing were considered a useful method for improving and sustaining participative safety and cooperation within surgical teams. The positive aspects of briefing were that shared agreements made at the start of the day and that briefing enabled participants to work as a team. Participants were less satisfied regarding debriefing, mostly because of the lack of a sense of urgency and a lack of a safe culture for feedback. Briefing and debriefing had less influence on efficiency.
Conclusions
Although
