Intensive care units (ICUs) provide care to the most severely ill hospitalized patients. Although ICUs increasingly rely on interprofessional teams to provide critical care, little about actual teamwork in this context is well understood. The ICU team is typically comprised of physicians or intensivists, clinical pharmacists, respiratory therapists, dieticians, bedside nurses, clinical psychologists, and clinicians-in-training. ICU teams are distinguished from other health care teams in that they are low in temporal stability, which can impede important team dynamics. Furthermore, ICU teams must work in physically and emotionally challenging environments. Our review of the literature reveals the importance of information sharing and decision-making processes, and identifies potential barriers to successful team performance, including the lack of effective conflict management and the presence of multiple and sometimes conflicting goals. Key knowledge gaps about ICU teams include the need for more actionable data linking ICU team structure to team functioning and patient-, family-, ICU-, and hospital-level outcomes. In particular, research is needed to better delineate and define the ICU team, identify additional psychosocial phenomena that impact ICU team performance, and address varying and often competing indicators of ICU team effectiveness as a multivariate and multilevel problem that requires better understanding of the independent effects and interdependencies between nested elements (i.e., hospitals, ICUs, and ICU teams). Ultimately, efforts to advance team-based care are essential for improving ICU performance, but more work is needed to develop actionable interventions that ensure that critically ill patients receive the best care possible. (PsycINFO Database Record

The Institute of Medicine has long documented systemic deficiencies and significant gaps between the healthcare that critically ill patients should and actually receive. These gaps For information regarding this article,

No abstract

The purpose of this review is to discuss the ways in which partner effects are examined in group contexts. We focus on social influence, as it is a common theme in group research from cognate fields such as communication, psychology, family studies, social psychology, and business. We elaborate on different conceptions of partner effects in our discussion of the social relations model (SRM), the actor-partner interdependence model (APIM), and the group actor-partner interdependence model (GAPIM), and provide a comprehensive review of the studies that have utilized these models to study groups. Following that, we discuss the ways in which partner effects research can improve our theoretical and empirical understanding of group processes.In this article, we review research that incorporates partner effects within group contexts. The term partner effect has both conceptual and methodological implications for modeling small group processes. Conceptually, a partner effect refers to changes in self's cognitions and/or behavior as a function of what other group members say and do. The nature of influence, as

No abstract