Background: Non-technical errors, such as insufficient communication or leadership, are a major cause of medical failures during trauma resuscitation. Research on staffing variation among trauma teams on teamwork is still in their infancy. In this study, the extent of variation in trauma team staffing was assessed. Our hypothesis was that there would be a high variation in trauma team staffing. Methods: Trauma team composition of consecutive resuscitations of injured patients were evaluated using videos. All trauma team members that where part of a trauma team during a trauma resuscitation were identified and classified during a one-week period. Other outcomes were number of unique team members, number of new team members following the previous resuscitation and new team members following the previous resuscitation in the same shift (Day, Evening, Night). Results: All thirty-two analyzed resuscitations had a unique trauma team composition and 101 unique members were involved. A mean of 5.71 (SD 2.57) new members in teams of consecutive trauma resuscitations was found, which was two-third of the trauma team. Mean team members present during trauma resuscitation was 8.38 (SD 1.43). Most variation in staffing was among nurses (32 unique members), radiology technicians (22 unique members) and anesthetists (19 unique members). The least variation was among trauma surgeons (3 unique members) and ER physicians (3 unique members). Conclusion: We found an extremely high variation in trauma team staffing during thirty-two consecutive resuscitations at our level one trauma center which is incorporated in an academic teaching hospital. Further research is required to explore and prevent potential negative effects of staffing variation in trauma teams on teamwork, processes and patient related outcomes.
Abstract: This case study examines the use of an eHealth application for improving preoperative rehabilitation (prehabilitation). We have analysed healthcare professionals' motivators and drivers for adopting eHealth for a surgical procedure at academic medical facilities. The research focused on when and why healthcare professionals are inclined to adopt eHealth applications in their way of working? For this qualitative study, we selected 12 professionals involved in all levels of the organisation and stages of the medical process and conducted semi-structured interviews. Kotter’s transformational change model and the Technology Acceptance Model were used as analytical frameworks for the identification of the motivation of eHealth adoption. The findings suggest that contrary to Kotter’s change model, which argues that adoption of change is based on perceptions and feelings, the healthcare drivers are rational when it comes to deciding whether or not to adopt eHealth apps. This study further elaborates the observation made by the Dutch expertise centre on eHealth, Nictiz, that when the value of an eHealth pplication is clear for a stakeholder, the adoption process accelerates. Analysis of the motivations and drivers of the healthcare professionals show a strong relationship with an evidence-based grounding of usefulness and the responsibility these professionals have towards their patients. We found that healthcare professionals respond to the primary goal of improving healthcare. This is true if the eHealth application will innovate their work, but mainly when the application will improve the patient care they are responsible for. When eHealth applications are implemented, rational facts need to be collected in a study before deployment of eHealth applications on how these applications will improve the patient's health or wellbeing throughout their so-called medical journey for their treatment. Furthermore, the preference to learn about new eHealth applications from someone who speaks from authority through expertise on the subject matter, suggests adoption by healthcare professionals may be accelerated through peers. The result of this study may provide healthcare management with a different approach to their eHealth strategy. Future research is needed to validate the findings in different medical organisational settings such as regional healthcare facilities or for-profit centers which do not necessarily have an innovation focus but are driven by other strategic drivers.
Coronary artery bypass grafting is the most frequently performed cardiac surgical procedure. Despite its benefits on survival and quality of life, it is associated with a considerable financial burden on society including sick leave. Our study aimed to explore the barriers that obstruct return to work after coronary artery bypass grafting. We performed a qualitative study with in-depth interviewing of patients 6 months after their surgery. We included ten working patients and interviewed them and their spouses at home. The interviews were transcribed and two investigators independently searched the transcriptions for barriers that had obstructed return to work. Based on the interviews we were able to distinguish four main groups of barriers: 'personal', 'healthcare', 'work' and 'law & regulation.' The personal barriers were subgrouped in affective, physical, cognitive, social and individually determined factors. Conclusion In a qualitative study we showed that personal barriers as well as barriers regarding healthcare, work and law & regulation, were perceived by patients as important factors obstructing return to work after coronary artery bypass grafting. To overcome the identified barriers, the process of return to work could preferably be initiated during the hospital phase, started during cardiac rehabilitation, and coordinated by a case-managing professional.
LINK
