OBJECTIVE: Valid teamwork assessment is imperative to determine physician competency and optimize patient outcomes. We systematically reviewed published instruments assessing teamwork in undergraduate, graduate, and continuing medical education in general internal medicine and all medical subspecialties. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-process, CINAHL and PsycINFO from January 1979 through October 2012, references of included articles, and abstracts from four professional meetings. Two content experts were queried for additional studies. STUDY ELIGIBILITY: Included studies described quantitative tools measuring teamwork among medical students, residents, fellows, and practicing physicians on single or multi-professional (interprofessional) teams. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS:Instrument validity and study quality were extracted using established frameworks with existing validity evidence. Two authors independently abstracted 30 % of articles and agreement was calculated. RESULTS: Of 12,922 citations, 178 articles describing 73 unique teamwork assessment tools met inclusion criteria. Interrater agreement was intraclass correlation coefficient 0.73 (95 % CI 0.63-0.81). Studies involved practicing physicians (142, 80 %), residents/fellows (70, 39 %), and medical students (11, 6 %). The majority (152, 85 %) assessed interprofessional teams. Studies were conducted in inpatient (77, 43 %), outpatient (42, 24 %), simulation (37, 21 %), and classroom (13, 7 %) settings. Validity evidence for the 73 tools included content (54, 74 %), internal structure (51, 70 %), relationships to other variables (25, 34 %), and response process (12, 16 %). Attitudes and opinions were the most frequently assessed outcomes. Relationships between teamwork scores and patient outcomes were directly examined for 13 (18 %) of tools. Scores from the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire and Team Climate Inventory have substantial validity evidence and have been associated with improved patient outcomes. LIMITATIONS: Review is limited to quantitative assessments of teamwork in internal medicine. CONCLUSIONS:There is strong validity evidence for several published tools assessing teamwork in internal medicine. However, few teamwork assessments have been directly linked to patient outcomes. 3,4 Recognizing this, the Institute of Medicine, the Joint Commission, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), and others have made teamwork a top priority in their recommendations for improving healthcare. [5][6][7][8][9] Teamwork is also prominently positioned within the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) requirements for maintenance of certification for internists, 10 as well as the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's core competencies, 11 milestones, 12 and medical student competencies. 13 As such, every physician at the undergraduate, graduate, and continuing professional level must demonstrate competency in teamwork.While there is broad agreement on the imperative to improve teamwork, there is littl...

Substantial validity evidence supports the use of several UME teamwork assessments. Four tools have been appropriately designed and sufficiently studied to constitute appropriate assessments of the AAMC's teamwork competencies.

Family caregiver engagement in clinical encounters can promote relationship-centered care and optimize outcomes for people with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD). Little is known, however, about effective ways for health care providers to engage family caregivers in clinical appointments to provide the highest quality care. We describe what caregivers of people with ADRD and people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) consider potential best practices for engaging caregivers as partners in clinical appointments. Seven online focus groups were convened. Three groups included spousal caregivers ( n = 42), three included non-spousal caregivers ( n = 36), and one included people with MCI ( n = 15). Seven potential best practices were identified, including the following: “acknowledge caregivers’ role and assess unmet needs and capacity to care” and “communicate directly with person with ADRD yet provide opportunities for caregivers to have separate interactions with providers.” Participants outlined concrete steps for providers and health care systems to improve care delivery quality for people with ADRD.