Effects of Cross-Training on Medical Teams’ Teamwork and Collaboration: Use of Simulation

Abstract

Previous research in the US Navy demonstrated that cross-training enhances teamwork and interpersonal collaboration. Limited data exists on cross-training effectiveness in medical education. This research aimed to assess whether cross-training would have similar effects on medical teams. A multidisciplinary pair of resident participants—consisting of one physician and one pharmacist—was randomly assigned to cross-training or current training condition. The training experience involved one video-based content module (training a pharmacist’s task of pharmacokinetic dosing and a physician’s task of intubation) and one simulation-based practice scenario (collaborative treatment of an unstable critically ill simulated patient). Interprofessional pairs randomized to cross-training condition participated in both the content module and practice scenario in the alternative professional role whereas pairs randomized to current training condition participated in their own professional role. Pairs also participated in pre- and post- training assessment scenarios in their own professional role. Teamwork and interprofessionalism were measured immediately following assessment scenarios. Knowledge assessments were conducted at the start and end of the scenario sequence. Multidisciplinary pairs experiencing cross-training showed a significant improvement in teamwork (increased by 6.11% vs. 3.24%, p < 0.05). All participants demonstrated significant improvement in knowledge scores (increase of 14% cross-training, p < 0.05, and increase of 13.9% control, p < 0.05). Our project suggests that cross-training can improve teamwork in interprofessional medical teams.

Effect of simulation‐based team training in airway management: a systematic review

“…In three studies, training was performed in‐situ in the real clinical environment, but with a simulated scenario [22, 24, 41]. The focus of the intervention was adult airway management in 14 studies [21–24, 28, 31–39], paediatric airway management in five studies [20, 26, 27, 30, 41], and a mix of the two in three studies [25, 29, 40].…”

“…After removing duplicates, we screened 612 studies by title and abstract and 116 studies were evaluated based on full text. Twenty‐two studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis [20–41]. Figure 2 shows details on the study selection process.…”

“…Of the included studies, 17 were single group pre‐test–post‐test studies [20–25, 28, 29, 31–33, 35–38, 40, 41], three were randomised controlled trials [30, 34, 39], one was a non‐randomised two‐group trial [27] and one included both a non‐randomised two‐group and a single group pre‐test–post‐test design [26] (Table 1).…”

“…Ten studies [20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28–30, 32, 41] exclusively included medical doctors (n = 582) and two (n = 98) included only nurses [35, 38]. The remaining 10 studies included participants of different professions (n = 1278): they comprised: medical doctors; nurses; respiratory therapists; paramedics; operating room practitioners; and pharmacists [22, 24, 27, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40]. Participants covered the following specialities: paediatrics; emergency medicine; anaesthesia; otolaryngology; critical care; surgery; and intensive care.…”

The International Pharmacy Game: A Comparison of Implementation in Seven Universities World-Wide

“…Herewith, a great opportunity opens for enhancement of the Pharmacy Game outcomes by further expansion into interprofessional education. Simulation of true multidisciplinary collaboration has the potential to provide authentic student experiences that they can carry into their future practice [ 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 ].…”