4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Using epistemic network analysis to identify targets for educational interventions in trauma team communication

期刊

SURGERY
卷 163, 期 4, 页码 938-943

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2017.11.009

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Board of Medical Examiner's Edward J. Stemmler Medical Education Fund
  2. National Science Foundation [DRL-0918409, DRL-0946372, DRL-1247262, DRL-1418288, DUE-0919347, DUE-1225885, EEC-1232656, EEC-1340402, REC-0347000]
  3. MacArthur Foundation
  4. Spencer Foundation
  5. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation
  6. University of Wisconsin-Madison

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Epistemic Network Analysis (ENA) is a technique for modeling and comparing the structure of connections between elements in coded data. We hypothesized that connections among team discourse elements as modeled by ENA would predict the quality of team performance in trauma simulation. Methods. The Modified Non-technical Skills Scale for Trauma (T-NOTECHS) was used to score a simulation based trauma team resuscitation. Sixteen teams of 5 trainees participated. Dialogue was coded using Verbal Response Modes (VRM), a speech classification system. ENA was used to model the connections between VRM codes. ENA models of teams with lesser T-NOTECHS scores (n = 9, mean = 16.98, standard deviation [SD] = 1.45) were compared with models of teams with greater T-NOTECHS scores (n = 7, mean = 21.02, SD = 1.09). Results. Teams had different patterns of connections among VRM speech form codes with regard to connections among questions and edifications (meanHIGH = 0.115, meanLOW = -0.089; t = 221; P=.046, Cohen d = 1.021). Greater-scoring groups had stronger connections between stating information and providing acknowledgments, confirmation, or advising. Lesser-scoring groups had a stronger connection between asking questions and stating information. Discourse data suggest that this pattern reflected increased uncertainty. Lesser-scoring groups also had stronger connections from edifications to disclosures (revealing thoughts, feelings, and intentions) and interpretations (explaining, judging, and evaluating the behavior of others). Conclusion. ENA is a novel and valid method to assess communication among trauma teams. Differences in communication among higher- and lower-performing teams appear to result from the ways teams use questions. ENA allowed us to identify targets for improvement related to the use of questions and stating information by team members. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据