Measuring Team Effectiveness in the Health Care Setting: An Inventory of Survey Tools

Background: Guidance for measuring team effectiveness in dynamic clinical settings is necessary; however, there are no consensus strategies to help health care organizations achieve optimal teamwork. This systematic review aims to identify validated survey instruments of team effectiveness by clinic...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Bita A Kash, Ohbet Cheon, Nicholas M Halzack, Thomas R Miller
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SAGE Publishing 2018-08-01
Series:Health Services Insights
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1177/1178632918796230
id doaj-311597525d4245a68a86d54d585f3f64
record_format Article
spelling doaj-311597525d4245a68a86d54d585f3f642020-11-25T02:34:26ZengSAGE PublishingHealth Services Insights1178-63292018-08-011110.1177/1178632918796230Measuring Team Effectiveness in the Health Care Setting: An Inventory of Survey ToolsBita A Kash0Ohbet Cheon1Nicholas M Halzack2Thomas R Miller3Center for Outcomes Research, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, TX, USACenter for Outcomes Research, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, TX, USAHealth Policy & Reimbursement, Roche Diagnostics Corporation, Washington, DC, USAHealth Policy Research, American Society of Anesthesiologists, Schaumburg, IL, USABackground: Guidance for measuring team effectiveness in dynamic clinical settings is necessary; however, there are no consensus strategies to help health care organizations achieve optimal teamwork. This systematic review aims to identify validated survey instruments of team effectiveness by clinical settings. Methods: PubMed, MEDLINE, and ISI Web of Knowledge were searched for team effectiveness surveys deployed from 1990 to 2016. Validity and reliability were evaluated using 4 psychometric properties: interrater agreement, internal consistency, content validity, and structural integrity. Two conceptual frameworks, the Donabedian model and the Command Team Effectiveness model, assess conceptual dimensions most measured in each health care setting. Results: The 22 articles focused on surgical, primary care, and other health care settings. Few instruments report the required psychometric properties or feature non-self-reported outcomes. The major conceptual dimensions measured in the survey instruments differed across settings. Team cohesion and overall perceived team effectiveness can be found in all the team effectiveness measurement tools regardless of the health care setting. We found that surgical settings have distinctive conditions for measuring team effectiveness relative to primary or ambulatory care. Discussion: Further development of setting-specific team effectiveness measurement tools can help further enhance continuous quality improvements and clinical outcomes in the future.https://doi.org/10.1177/1178632918796230
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Bita A Kash
Ohbet Cheon
Nicholas M Halzack
Thomas R Miller
spellingShingle Bita A Kash
Ohbet Cheon
Nicholas M Halzack
Thomas R Miller
Measuring Team Effectiveness in the Health Care Setting: An Inventory of Survey Tools
Health Services Insights
author_facet Bita A Kash
Ohbet Cheon
Nicholas M Halzack
Thomas R Miller
author_sort Bita A Kash
title Measuring Team Effectiveness in the Health Care Setting: An Inventory of Survey Tools
title_short Measuring Team Effectiveness in the Health Care Setting: An Inventory of Survey Tools
title_full Measuring Team Effectiveness in the Health Care Setting: An Inventory of Survey Tools
title_fullStr Measuring Team Effectiveness in the Health Care Setting: An Inventory of Survey Tools
title_full_unstemmed Measuring Team Effectiveness in the Health Care Setting: An Inventory of Survey Tools
title_sort measuring team effectiveness in the health care setting: an inventory of survey tools
publisher SAGE Publishing
series Health Services Insights
issn 1178-6329
publishDate 2018-08-01
description Background: Guidance for measuring team effectiveness in dynamic clinical settings is necessary; however, there are no consensus strategies to help health care organizations achieve optimal teamwork. This systematic review aims to identify validated survey instruments of team effectiveness by clinical settings. Methods: PubMed, MEDLINE, and ISI Web of Knowledge were searched for team effectiveness surveys deployed from 1990 to 2016. Validity and reliability were evaluated using 4 psychometric properties: interrater agreement, internal consistency, content validity, and structural integrity. Two conceptual frameworks, the Donabedian model and the Command Team Effectiveness model, assess conceptual dimensions most measured in each health care setting. Results: The 22 articles focused on surgical, primary care, and other health care settings. Few instruments report the required psychometric properties or feature non-self-reported outcomes. The major conceptual dimensions measured in the survey instruments differed across settings. Team cohesion and overall perceived team effectiveness can be found in all the team effectiveness measurement tools regardless of the health care setting. We found that surgical settings have distinctive conditions for measuring team effectiveness relative to primary or ambulatory care. Discussion: Further development of setting-specific team effectiveness measurement tools can help further enhance continuous quality improvements and clinical outcomes in the future.
url https://doi.org/10.1177/1178632918796230
work_keys_str_mv AT bitaakash measuringteameffectivenessinthehealthcaresettinganinventoryofsurveytools
AT ohbetcheon measuringteameffectivenessinthehealthcaresettinganinventoryofsurveytools
AT nicholasmhalzack measuringteameffectivenessinthehealthcaresettinganinventoryofsurveytools
AT thomasrmiller measuringteameffectivenessinthehealthcaresettinganinventoryofsurveytools
_version_ 1724809049299484672