Mythen und Fakten zur Teamarbeit, PD Dr. Michaela Kolbe
Transcription
Mythen und Fakten zur Teamarbeit, PD Dr. Michaela Kolbe
Von der Formel 1 und dem Cockpit ins Spital oder auch nicht: Mythen und Fakten zur Teamarbeit PD Dr. Michaela Kolbe Universitätsspital Zürich / ETH Zürich Teamarbeit: Segen Teamarbeit: Fluch Zusammenhang zwischen “adverse events” und schlechter Teamarbeit Bsp. Chirurgie: Schlechte Teamarbeit zweithäufigste Fehlerursache; schlechte Teamkommunikation sagt Operationsdauer vorher Risiken in der Teamarbeit Viele herausfordernde Teamstrukturen (Adhoc Teams); wenig Training in Teamarbeit Cooper JB, Newbower RS, Long CD, McPeek B. Preventable anesthesia mishaps: A study of human factors. Quality and Safety in Health Care. 2002;11:277-283. Gawande AA, Zinner MJ, Studdert DM, Brennan TA. Analysis of errors reported by surgeons at three teaching hospitals. Surgery. 2003;133:614-621. Gillespie BM, Chaboyer W, Fairwater N. Factors that influence the expected length of operation: results of a prospective study. BMJ Quality & Safety. 2011;21:3-12. Greenberg C, Regenbogen S, Studdert D, et al. Patterns of Communication Breakdowns Resulting in Injury to Surgical Patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;204:533 - 540. Pronovost P. Teamwork matters. In: Salas E, Tannenbaum SI, Cohen D, Latham G, eds. Developing and enhancing teamwork in organizations: Evidence-based best practices and guidelines. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2013:11-12. 7 Mythen Mythos 1 Mythos: Einigkeit und Harmonie im Team sind das Allerwichtigste. ! Realität: Beispiel 1: Entscheidung zur Invasion in die Schweinebucht (Kuba) von Kennedy und seinen Beratern 1961 Starkes Gewicht auf Harmonie und Abschottung nach Aussen können zu “Gruppendenken” und damit zu schlechten Teamentscheidungen führen. Beispiel 2: NASA’s Entscheidung zum Start des Spaceshuttles Challenger (Sorge der Ingenieure z.T. ignoriert) 1986 Janis IL. Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin; 1982. Mythos 2 Mythos: Meinungs- und Informationsvielfalt zahlen sich automatisch aus. ! Realität: Teams reden häufiger über das, was alle schon wissen (=geteilte Inf.), anstatt über Dinge, die bisher nur wenige wissen (=ungeteilte Inf.) Larson, J. R. J., Christensen, C., Franz, T. M., & Abbott, A. S. (1998). Diagnosing groups: The pooling, management, and impact of shared and unshared case information in team-based medical decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 93-108. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.93 Mythos 3 Mythos: Teamarbeit ist immer besser als Einzelarbeit. ! Realität: Ob sich Teamarbeit lohnt, hängt von der Zusammenarbeit im Team und von der eigentlichen Aufgabe ab. Zajonc RB. Social facilitation. Science. 1965;149:269-274. Versuchsanordnung (aus: Aronson et al. 3004; S. 326): Soziale Erleichterung & Soziale Hemmung Zajonc RB. Social facilitation. Science. 1965;149:269-274. Mythos 4 Mythos: In guten Teams gibt es keine Konflikte, v.a. keine persönlichen. Realität: Gute Teams schaffen “Psychologische Sicherheit” und nutzen Konflikte, um besser zu werden. ! Catmull, E. (2008). How pixar fosters collective creativity. Harvard Business Review, September, 1-11. Edmondson, A. C., & McLain Smith, D. (2006). Too hot to handle? How to manage relationship conflict. California Management Review, 49(1), 6-31. Edmondson, A. C. (2012). Teaming: How organizations learn, innovate, and compete in the knowledge economy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mythos: Mythos 5 Einmal “aufgestellt”, funktionieren gute Teams mehr oder weniger automatisch. ! Realität: Gute Teams reflektieren über und trainieren das Zusammenarbeiten. Edmondson AC. Teaming: How organizations learn, innovate, and compete in the knowledge economy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2012. Tucker AL, Edmondson AC. Why hospitals don't learn from failures: Organizational and psychological dynamics that inhibit system change. California Management Review. 2003;45:55-72. Mythos 6 Mythos: Haben die Teamkollegen ein Anliegen, wenden sie sich damit automatisch an die Führungsperson. ! Realität: “Habituiertes Schweigen” Kish-Gephart JJ, Detert JR, Treviño LK, Edmondson AC. Silenced by fear: The nature, sources, and consequences of fear at work. Res Organ Behav. 2009;29:163-193. Und nun? 6 Paradoxe Ratschläge 6 Paradoxe Ratschläge 1. Reden Sie nie über Ihre Zusammenarbeit im Team! (So etwas machen nur Psychologinnen.) ! 6 Paradoxe Ratschläge Mathieu, J. E., & Rapp, T. L. (2009). Laying the foundation for successful team performance trajectories: The roles of team charters and performance strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 90-103. doi: 10.1037/a0013257 Tannenbaum, S. I., & Goldhaber-Fiebert, S. (2013). Medical team debriefs: Simple, powerful, underutilized. In E. Salas & K. Frush (Eds.), Improving patient safety through teamwork and team training (pp. 249-256). New York: Oxford University Press. West, M. A. (2004). Effective teamwork. Practical lessons from organizational research (2nd ed.). Oxford: BPS Blackwell. 6 Paradoxe Ratschläge 2. Lassen Sie Ihre Teammitglieder erraten, was Sie wollen! (Klare Ansagen sind etwas für Anfänger.) 6 Paradoxe Ratschläge 2. b Gleiches gilt für klare Rollen. (Wer’s nicht kapiert, dem ist nicht zu helfen.) Catchpole, K. R., de Leval, M. R., McEwan, A., Pigott, N., Elliot, M. J., McQuillan, A., MacDonald, C., & Goldman, A. J. (2007). Patient handover from surgery to intensive care: Using Formula 1 pit-stop and aviation models improve safety and quality. Pediatric Anesthesia, 17, 470-478. H A N D O V ER F R O M S U R G ER Y T O I N T EN S I V E C A R E 4 71 rds: communication; error; handover; quality; safety; ork P A T I E N T H A N D O V ER F R O M S U R G ER Y T O I N T EN S I V E C A R E 4 73 Table 2 Summary of the new handover protocol Phase 0: prehandover ex congenital m, who have the intensive ortant period e vulnerable e technology g lines, mulsferred twice, ment, then to min. At the ained by the re is handed U). It is the cess susceptatient is most ity of care we gh-reliability Phase 1: equipment and technology handover The Patient Transfer Form is completed by the anesthetist and collected from theater at least 30 min before the patient is transferred to the ICU. The receiving nurse ensures the bed space is set up according to the monitoring, ventilation and other requirements specified on the Patient Transfer Form. The receiving doctor ensures that all appropriate paperwork is ready. On arrival the team transfers the patient ventilation, monitoring and support from portable systems used during the transfer to the ICU systems. Safety check: the anesthetist checks the equipment and that the patient is appropriately ventilated and monitored and is stable. The receiving nurse and doctor are identified and confirm their readiness. ing was seen Phase 2: information The anesthetist, then the surgeon, speak alone and uninterrupted, providing the relevant information handover about the case, using the Information Transfer Aid Memoir. -professional Safety check: the receiving nurse and doctor should use the Information Transfer Aid Memoir to check o effectively that all necessary information has been obtained, and ask appropriate questions. Phase 3: discussion The surgeon, anesthetist and receiving team discuss the case as a group. The receiving physician tyres and fill and plan manages the discussions, identifies anticipated problems, and anticipated recovery is discussed. The ICU team now has responsibility for patient care, and confirms the plans for the patient. (approx 7 s) s targeted as Figure 1 A Formula 1 pit-stop. handover of open heart surgery to correct congenital heart described in Table 1 and the new handover protocol iprofessional defects, and had been in the operating theater for and process which emerged are summarized in d ICU staff) 2–6 h. The RACHS-1 method (5) was utilized to class Table 2. patients into risk groups, with level 1 and 2 operme pressure, ations designated as low risk, and levels 3 to andintensive 4 Catchpole, K. R., de Leval, M. R., McEwan, A., Pigott, N., Elliot, M. J., McQuillan, A., population MacDonald, C., & Goldman, A. J. (2007). Patient handover from surgery Methods rmation. The Patient designated as high risk. In the old handover group y skills also care: Using Formula 1 pit-stop and aviation models improve safety and quality. Pediatric Anesthesia, 17, 470-478. 15 were in the low-risk surgery group, and eight A total of 50 patient handovers were studied, with 23 Study design https://vimeo.com/141795729 Valentine, M. A., & Edmondson, A. C. (2015). Team scaffolds: How mesolevel structures enable role-based coordination in temporary groups. Organization Science, 26, 405-422. doi: doi:10.1287/orsc.2014.0947 6 Paradoxe Ratschläge 6 N. Bienefeld & G. Grote: Silence in Aircrews Table 3. Contingency table of reasons for crew members’ silence and chi-square tests Frequencies (percentage) of reasons per occupational group Reasons for silence 1. Status differences 2. Fear of damaging relationships 3. Feelings of futility 4. Lack of experience in current job position or on aircraft type 5. Negative impact on others 6. Poor relationship with supervisor Original Article 7. Fear of punishment 8. Fear of negative label 9. Perceived conflict efficiency versus safety 10. Perceived time pressure Captain n = 261 First officer n = 334 Purser n = 307 Flight attendant n = 849 0 (0%) 137 (53%) 0 (0%) 36 36 (11%) 143 (43%) 111 (33%) 44 63 (20%) 45 (15%) 72 (23%) 10 343 (40%) 357 (42%) 436 (51%) 0 (14%) 63 (24%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 8 (3%) 55 (21%) 53 (20%) (13%) 80 (24%) 67 (20%) 76 (23%) 97 (29%) 46 (14%) 37 (11%) (3%) 49 (16%) 79 (26%) 206 (67%) 65 (21%) 215 (70%) 126 (41%) (0%) 307 (36%) 299 (35%) 690 (81%) 55 (6%) 249 (29%) 110 (13%) v2 (df = 3) 232.15* 101.84* 257.53* 122.46* 53.96* 137.05* 715.62* 150.28* 270.93* 132.87* Notes. Percentages of reasons given add up to more than 100%, as most participants indicated more than one reason for their silence. Figures in bold represent the three most frequently chosen reasons per occupational group. *p < .001. First Officers’ Main Reasons for Silence Discussion Bienefeld-Seall N, Grote G. Silence that43% mayofkill: When aircrew members don't speak up and why. Aviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors. 2012;2(1):1-10. In cockpit crews, first officers feared that speaking In this study, we explored past speaking up behavior and the 6 Paradoxe Ratschläge 6 Paradoxe Ratschläge 4. Fragen Sie nie nach und hören Sie nie zu! (Sie wissen es eh selbst am besten.) Wahrnehmungsfehler 1: Implizite Persönlichkeitstheorien ! ! Vermutung, dass manche Persönlichkeitseigenschaften „einfach zusammen gehören“ Beispiele: Grosszügige Menschen sind auch warmherzig Lehrer/innen führen schlechte Leistung der Schüler/innen auf deren Faulheit zurück Wahrnehmungsfehler 2: Falscher Konsensus Effekt Tendenz, die eigene Sicht als normal und häufig vorkommend zu erachten Führt zur (falschen) Annahme, dass Andere die eigene Ansicht teilen Ross, L., Green, D., & House, P. (1977). The 'false consensus effect': An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 279-301. Wahrnehmungsfehler 3: Fundamentaler Attributionsfehler Tendenz, den Einfluss dispositionaler Ursachen auf das Verhalten von Anderen zu überschätzen Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychol Bull, 117(1), 21-38. 6 Paradoxe Ratschläge 5. Zeigen Sie in keinem Fall Wertschätzung und seien Sie respektlos! (Nur Warmduscher brauchen Lob.) 6 Paradoxe Ratschläge Porath, C. L., & Erez, A. (2009). Overlooked but not untouched: How rudeness reduces onlookers' performance on routine and creative tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(1), 29-44. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.01.003 6 Paradoxe Ratschläge Porath, C. L., Gerbasi, A., & Schorch, S. L. (2015). The Effects of Civility on Advice, Leadership, and Performance. J Appl Psychol, No Pagination Specified. doi: 10.1037/ apl0000016 6 Paradoxe Ratschläge 6. Jammern Sie! Und zwar so richtig! 6 Paradoxe Ratschläge 6 Paradoxe Ratschläge Zusatz-Ratschlag: Rühren Sie den “Elefanten im Raum” nicht an! Vielen Dank. michaela.kolbe@usz.ch ! ! Besuchen Sie uns im Simulationszentrum: www.simulationszentrum.usz.ch