Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Class |
|---|---|
| Rigshospitalet, Denmark | OTHER |
| Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf | OTHER |
| Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc | OTHER |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
This study is enrolled in the European KEEPCARING Project. KEEPCARING aims to (re-)build wellbeing and resilience of healthcare workforce in EU hospitals by co-creating a multi-faceted non-digital, digital, and AI-supported solution package to prevent burnout among (aspirant) healthcare professionals on the individual, team, and organizational level.
This study specifically investigate the operating room staff wellbeing and resilience. The healthcare system is currently struggling to retain and attract operating room personnel. A factor of importance to consider here is occupational stress. If not recognized or mitigated well, occupational stress and personal efficacy can eventually evolve into a syndrome labelled as 'burnout'. In addition, communication and resilience patterns between operating room staff members are of influence, poor and/or inadequate communication among staff may be a factor of stress, compromising their work and wellbeing. In contrast, communication patterns that have a high standard and clarity may support resilience. The ability to speak up and being able to advocate concerns of all team members is of the highest importance here. Indeed, psychological safety and effective teamwork patterns are key for the working environment, performance, patient safety, and job satisfaction. To prevent mistakes during surgery, a safe space where team members can freely speak up is vital.
To improve psychological safety, and teamwork among OR staff, team debriefing after surgery is known to be effective. What is not known; is whether team debriefing with the additional support derived from audio- and video recordings of the surgery is equally effective as debriefing without.
The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of structured postoperative debriefings with and without procedural, structured audio- and video recordings, on team performance, psychological safety, and non-technical skills in the operating room. Specifically, this study aims to compare augmented debriefings with non-augmented debriefings, to assess differences in perceived usefulness, psychological safety, and observed improvements in teams' non-technical skills.
This is an international quasi-experimental comparative study. The intervention consists of postoperative team debriefing using audio and video recordings ('augmented debriefing') from Operating Room Black Box system provided by Surgical Safety Technologies. The control group will have a postoperative team debriefing that is not augmented with Operating Room Black Box derived data. An identical debriefing template will be designed for both groups.
Design and setting This is an international quasi-experimental comparative study, following the guidelines for complex interventions in health. The intervention will be ORBB augmented team-debriefing after surgery. The control group will debrief after surgery without the assistance of the ORBB. An identical debriefing template has been designed for both groups.
This study will be conducted at OR departments in three university hospitals, located in three different countries: Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital (RIGS), Amsterdam University Medical Center (AUMC) and University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE). RIGS have nine OR's with ORBB installed and access to ORBB-generated video material and outcome reports using explainable AI. AUMC is expected to have two OR's with ORBB installed before beginning of study. RIGS and AUMC are planned as both interventions and control sites, AUMC will if unforeseen delays occur with ORBB installation, be a control site (e.g. have only non-augmented debriefings). UKE does not have ORBB and will be a control site.
Characteristics of the study population
Participants Full OR teams performing elective daytime surgeries, approximately 4-12 people per team. The teams will be selected from a variety of specialties such as cardiothoracic, gynecology, urology, abdominal, vascular, and orthopedic surgery. Depending on the variety and possibility at each site, RIGS, AUMC and UKE, including limitations due to which ORs have ORBB installed.
Intervention Investigators anticipate that the intervention of the study occurs over a 1-month period for each team. In total, the intervention period is scheduled over a one-year period within 2026. During all data collection team members speak in their native language, so for RIGS this is Danish, for AUMC Dutch and for UKE German. The intervention includes a baseline questionnaire, a surgery, a short questionnaire after surgery, an observed debriefing and a follow up questionnaire after surgery.
The intervention set up is the same for teams with and without ORBB, only difference is the audio and video from the ORBB and SST. Furthermore, the debriefings will be audio recorded, and a researcher will observe the sessions. After the intervention period, a sample of participants will be asked to participate in a qualitive interview study.
Preparation before team debriefing After surgery the OR team members individually fill out a short questionnaire. Team members will answer questions about the following four topics: overall procedure, teamwork, safety protocols and learning opportunities.
The key points are wide in their definitions purposely because the team members should have the possibility to choose meaningful moments from the actual OR situation within the four topics. They must answer the questionnaire within 12 hours after surgery, to secure that the OR episode is still fresh in their minds.
Afterwards the researcher on site will review the questionnaires and during non-augmented debriefings bring their answers into play. During augmented debriefings, the researcher will 'flag' the surgery within the SST platform and in collaboration with SST create 2-4 videoclips, that contains the key elements chosen by the team members.
Team debriefing The setup in both augmented and non-augmented debriefings focus on creating a dedicated learning environment that prioritizes reflection, open communication, and psychological safety during the sessions. The physical space is carefully designed to support these critical aspects of team learning and collaboration.
In every debriefing an independent educational specialist (with no formal or working relation to the OR) is used as a moderator that controls the conversation and follow the debriefing template.
During the debriefing a researcher observes the conversation and interactions between team members and the moderator. The observing researcher sits in a corner of the room, disturbing as little as possible, being quiet and only taking field notes of the interaction between the team members and the moderator. The debriefing sessions will be audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim by the observing researcher.
The session is time-limited to 30-60 minutes, balancing comprehensive discussion with efficiency. Critically, the debriefing is ideally conducted after approximately 5 (to a maximum of 21 days) following the surgery, allowing team members sufficient time to process the experience while maintaining the immediacy of relevant insights and reflections emotionally and professionally.
At the same time, securing the researchers a timespan to overview the short questionnaires, and select key points, for the moderator to work with in the debriefing sessions. Specific for the ORBB augmented debriefings, at the same time securing a timespan for the researchers to select and prepare 2-4 videoclips within the ORBB platform in collaboration with SST before the debriefing.
Debriefing template for debriefing In this study investigators implement a six-step team debriefing model, tested with a high rate of participant satisfaction (7.8/10 rating) in a previous study on 35 ORBB augmented abdominal surgery team debriefing sessions. The researchers concluded that their proposed approach effectively facilitates OR debriefing across diverse healthcare settings and provides a viable framework for establishing a much-needed debriefing culture to enhance surgical team performance. Investigators adjusted the model with few moderations to fit both OR debriefings with and without ORBB augmented data, and to include more OR specialties, on top of abdominal OR teams.
During the debriefings the moderator controls the conversation, and every team member represents their field of expertise in the OR. The moderator follows the themes; experience, observation, analyze and application.
During the debriefings all teams will focus on psychological safety and problem solving within the following four key points: overall procedure, teamwork, safety protocols and learning opportunities. For the intervention sites, the debriefing templates are the same as the control site, only add on is the ORBB augmented material of 2-4 videoclips and objective data from SST platform, integrated into the debriefing templates.
Data and Outcomes Investigators will gather data about the debriefings and measure outcomes through the following measurement tools; observation and audio recording of team debriefings, individual pre- and post-debriefing questionnaires and qualitative interviews. Specifically for surgeries using the ORBB system, OR teams will also be observed through audio and video-review from ORBB, including AI statistical data provided by SST.
This will allow for in-depth analysis of team dynamics, providing a structured approach to understanding and improving collaborative practices in surgical settings. By capturing both quantitative ratings and qualitative insights, the research aims to develop targeted strategies that can elevate team communication, psychological safety, and overall performance.
Regulatory and ethics The coordinating hospital for this study is RIGS. In 2019, the Danish Data Protection Agency approved the overall ORBB project (registration no.: VD-2019-275). The project was submitted to the Regional Ethics Committee in 2018, and no ethical approval was needed (registration no.: H-18018801). Additional approval for this debriefing study has been obtained in 2025 from the Regional Legal and Ethics Committee in Copenhagen, Denmark, PRIVACY - legal GRC (ID-NUMBER: p-2025-19044).
Participation in this study is voluntary and thus consent based. All participants will receive oral and written information before entering the study, and they must sign a consent form to participate. Participants can withdraw their consent at any time. Data will be stored on certified servers of Zenodo, which complies with all regulations and applicable laws. Data will also be stored locally in the department's computer system drive.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Debriefings with Operating Room Black Box audio and video material | Other | Operating Room Black Box audio and video material included in debriefings |
|
| Debriefings without Operating Room Black Box audio and video material | Other | Debriefings without Operating Room Black Box audio and video material |
|
| Observation of team debriefing | Other | Observational study part of team member interaction during the team debriefing |
|
| Qualitative interviews after team debriefing | Other | Qualitative interview study part of team members after debriefing |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Debriefing | Behavioral | Debriefing after surgery for operating room staff |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Psychological safety | Amy Edmondsons Scale on psychological safety and learning behaviour in operating room teams. 7 items scale; minimum value 1, maximum value 5. | 1-3 months |
| Usefulness and satisfaction of the team-debriefing | Usefulness and satisfaction of the team-debriefing, Van Dalen scale. 6 items score, minimum value 1, maximum value 5. | 1-3 months |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Health and quality of life (Validated scale EQ-5D-3L) | We include the following 3 dimensions from the EQ-5D-3L descriptive system; usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression. Each dimension has 3 levels: no problems, some problems, and extreme problems. The participant is asked to indicate his/her health state by ticking the box next to the most appropriate statement in each of the three dimensions. |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Role | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Johanne S Hartmann, RN, MScN | Contact | +4535450933 | johanne.soeborg.hartmann@regionh.dk | |
| Jeanett Strandbygaard, MD, PhD | Contact | jeanett.strandbygaard@regionh.dk |
Not provided
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Copenhagen University Hospital, Denmark | Recruiting | Copenhagen | 2100 | Denmark |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Background | The ethnographic interview af James P. Spradley | ||
| Background | Brinkmann S, Kvale S. Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage; 2003. | ||
| 16484270 | Background | Oakley A, Strange V, Bonell C, Allen E, Stephenson J; RIPPLE Study Team. Process evaluation in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions. BMJ. 2006 Feb 18;332(7538):413-6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.332.7538.413. | |
| Background | Rose Gillian. Visual methodologies : an introduction to researching with visual materials. 2023;454. | ||
| Label | URL |
|---|---|
| Burn out an occupational phenomen | View source |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| 1-3 months |
| University Hospital UKE | Not yet recruiting | Hamburg | Germany |
|
| University Hospital AUMC | Not yet recruiting | Amsterdam | Netherlands |
|
| Background |
| Cook DA, Brydges R, Ginsburg S, Hatala R. A contemporary approach to validity arguments: a practical guide to Kane's framework. Med Educ. 2015 Jun;49(6):560-75. doi: 10.1111/medu.12678. |
| Background | Spradley JP. Qualitative Research Guide: Participant Observation. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc |
| 17054619 | Background | Yule S, Flin R, Paterson-Brown S, Maran N, Rowley D. Development of a rating system for surgeons' non-technical skills. Med Educ. 2006 Nov;40(11):1098-104. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02610.x. |
| 20551023 | Background | Gaba DM. Crisis resource management and teamwork training in anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 2010 Jul;105(1):3-6. doi: 10.1093/bja/aeq124. No abstract available. |
| 32799696 | Background | Biesta GJJ, van Braak M. Beyond the Medical Model: Thinking Differently about Medical Education and Medical Education Research. Teach Learn Med. 2020 Aug-Sep;32(4):449-456. doi: 10.1080/10401334.2020.1798240. Epub 2020 Aug 15. |
| Background | Gadamer HG. Truth and method. Bloomsbury Academic; 1960. |
| Background | Cantor GN, Bhaskar R. The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences. Philos Q. 1982 Jul;32(128):280. |
| Background | Alvesson Mats, Sköldberg Kaj. Reflexive methodology : new vistas for qualitative research. 2018;437. |
| 24909527 | Background | Cheng A, Eppich W, Grant V, Sherbino J, Zendejas B, Cook DA. Debriefing for technology-enhanced simulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Educ. 2014 Jul;48(7):657-66. doi: 10.1111/medu.12432. |
| Background | Nembhard IM, Edmondson AC. Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. J Organ Behav |
| Background | Hallberg Ingalill, Richards DA. Complex interventions in health : an overview of research methods |
| 19934755 | Background | Shanafelt TD, Balch CM, Bechamps G, Russell T, Dyrbye L, Satele D, Collicott P, Novotny PJ, Sloan J, Freischlag J. Burnout and medical errors among American surgeons. Ann Surg. 2010 Jun;251(6):995-1000. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181bfdab3. |
| 28338514 | Background | Langerman A, Grantcharov TP. Are We Ready for Our Close-up?: Why and How We Must Embrace Video in the OR. Ann Surg. 2017 Dec;266(6):934-936. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002232. No abstract available. |
| 36112770 | Background | Moller KE, Sorensen JL, Topperzer MK, Koerner C, Ottesen B, Rosendahl M, Grantcharov T, Strandbygaard J. Implementation of an Innovative Technology Called the OR Black Box: A Feasibility Study. Surg Innov. 2023 Feb;30(1):64-72. doi: 10.1177/15533506221106258. Epub 2022 Sep 16. |
| 29606010 | Background | Rose MR, Rose KM. Use of a Surgical Debriefing Checklist to Achieve Higher Value Health Care. Am J Med Qual. 2018 Sep/Oct;33(5):514-522. doi: 10.1177/1062860618763534. Epub 2018 Apr 2. |
| 34407917 | Background | Leonard LD, Shaw M, Moyer A, Tevis S, Schulick R, McIntyre R Jr, Ballou M, Reiter K, Lace C, Weitzel N, Wiler J, Meacham R, Cumbler E, Steward L. The surgical debrief: Just another checklist or an instrument to drive cultural change? Am J Surg. 2022 Jan;223(1):120-125. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2021.07.043. Epub 2021 Jul 29. |
| 32671270 | Background | Mundt AS, Gjeraa K, Spanager L, Petersen SS, Dieckmann P, Ostergaard D. Okay, let's talk - short debriefings in the operating room. Heliyon. 2020 Jul 4;6(7):e04386. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04386. eCollection 2020 Jul. |
| 37452720 | Background | Skegg E, McElroy C, Mudgway M, Hamill J. Debriefing to improve interprofessional teamwork in the operating room: A systematic review. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2023 Nov;55(6):1179-1188. doi: 10.1111/jnu.12924. Epub 2023 Jul 15. |
| 38086257 | Background | McElroy C, Skegg E, Mudgway M, Murray N, Holmes L, Weller J, Hamill J. Psychological Safety and Hierarchy in Operating Room Debriefing: Reflexive Thematic Analysis. J Surg Res. 2024 Mar;295:567-573. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2023.11.054. Epub 2023 Dec 11. |
| 28104293 | Background | Boet S, Sharma B, Pigford AA, Hladkowicz E, Rittenhouse N, Grantcharov T. Debriefing decreases mental workload in surgical crisis: A randomized controlled trial. Surgery. 2017 May;161(5):1215-1220. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2016.11.031. Epub 2017 Jan 16. |
| 33929739 | Background | Wright MI, Polivka B, Abusalem S. An Examination of Factors That Predict the Perioperative Culture of Safety. AORN J. 2021 May;113(5):465-475. doi: 10.1002/aorn.13373. |
| 30975383 | Background | Weller JM, Long JA. Creating a climate for speaking up. Br J Anaesth. 2019 Jun;122(6):710-713. doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2019.03.003. Epub 2019 Apr 8. No abstract available. |
| Background | Maunder R et. al. Burnout in hospital-based healthcare workers during COVID-19. . Science Briefs of the Ontario COVID-19 Science Advisory Table. 2021; |
| 39103662 | Background | Al Abbas AI, Meier J, Daniel W, Cadeddu JA, Bartolome S, Willett DL, Palter V, Grantcharov T, Odeh J, Dandekar P, Evans K, Wu E, Apraku W, Zeh HJ 3rd. Impact of team performance on the surgical safety checklist on patient outcomes: an operating room black box analysis. Surg Endosc. 2024 Oct;38(10):5613-5622. doi: 10.1007/s00464-024-11064-7. Epub 2024 Aug 5. |
| 27045560 | Background | Feo R, Kitson A. Promoting patient-centred fundamental care in acute healthcare systems. Int J Nurs Stud. 2016 May;57:1-11. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.01.006. Epub 2016 Feb 1. |
| 27862496 | Background | Arakelian E, Swenne CL, Lindberg S, Rudolfsson G, von Vogelsang AC. The meaning of person-centred care in the perioperative nursing context from the patient's perspective - an integrative review. J Clin Nurs. 2017 Sep;26(17-18):2527-2544. doi: 10.1111/jocn.13639. Epub 2017 Feb 16. |
| 20919512 | Background | Balch CM, Shanafelt T. Combating stress and burnout in surgical practice: a review. Adv Surg. 2010;44:29-47. doi: 10.1016/j.yasu.2010.05.018. |
| 33305491 | Background | Li N, Zhang L, Li X, Lu Q. The influence of operating room nurses' job stress on burnout and organizational commitment: The moderating effect of over-commitment. J Adv Nurs. 2021 Apr;77(4):1772-1782. doi: 10.1111/jan.14725. Epub 2020 Dec 10. |
| Background | Tekeletsadik S, Mulat H, Necho M, Waja T. Occupational Stress and Its Associated Factors among Health Care Professionals Working At a Setting of a Specialized Mental Hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2017: A Hospital-Based Cross-Sectional Study. J Psychol Psychother |
| 33171618 | Background | Magnavita N, Soave PM, Ricciardi W, Antonelli M. Occupational Stress and Mental Health among Anesthetists during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Nov 8;17(21):8245. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17218245. |
| 35903183 | Background | Yosef B, Woldegerima Berhe Y, Yilkal Fentie D, Belete Getahun A. Occupational Stress among Operation Room Clinicians at Ethiopian University Hospitals. J Environ Public Health. 2022 Jul 19;2022:2077317. doi: 10.1155/2022/2077317. eCollection 2022. |
| 24581683 | Background | Aiken LH, Sloane DM, Bruyneel L, Van den Heede K, Griffiths P, Busse R, Diomidous M, Kinnunen J, Kozka M, Lesaffre E, McHugh MD, Moreno-Casbas MT, Rafferty AM, Schwendimann R, Scott PA, Tishelman C, van Achterberg T, Sermeus W; RN4CAST consortium. Nurse staffing and education and hospital mortality in nine European countries: a retrospective observational study. Lancet. 2014 May 24;383(9931):1824-30. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62631-8. Epub 2014 Feb 26. |
| 30686309 | Background | Pattni N, Arzola C, Malavade A, Varmani S, Krimus L, Friedman Z. Challenging authority and speaking up in the operating room environment: a narrative synthesis. Br J Anaesth. 2019 Feb;122(2):233-244. doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2018.10.056. Epub 2018 Dec 1. |
| 36620282 | Background | Arad D, Finkelstein A, Rozenblum R, Magnezi R. Patient safety and staff psychological safety: A mixed methods study on aspects of teamwork in the operating room. Front Public Health. 2022 Dec 23;10:1060473. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1060473. eCollection 2022. |
| 36825918 | Background | Mayes CG, Cochran K. Factors Influencing Perioperative Nurse Turnover: A Classic Grounded Theory Study. AORN J. 2023 Mar;117(3):161-174. doi: 10.1002/aorn.13880. |
| Background | Birkbak A. Actor-Network Theory. Sociology |
| 31358000 | Background | Torring B, Gittell JH, Laursen M, Rasmussen BS, Sorensen EE. Communication and relationship dynamics in surgical teams in the operating room: an ethnographic study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Jul 29;19(1):528. doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4362-0. |
| 32865281 | Background | Schaap M, Hanskamp-Sebregts M, Merkx TMAW, Heideveld-Chevalking AAJ, Meijerink JWJHJ. Long-term effects of perioperative briefing and debriefing on team climate: A mixed-method evaluation study. Int J Clin Pract. 2021 Mar;75(3):e13689. doi: 10.1111/ijcp.13689. Epub 2020 Sep 21. |
| 30865340 | Background | Sandelin A, Kalman S, Gustafsson BA. Prerequisites for safe intraoperative nursing care and teamwork-Operating theatre nurses' perspectives: A qualitative interview study. J Clin Nurs. 2019 Jul;28(13-14):2635-2643. doi: 10.1111/jocn.14850. Epub 2019 Mar 29. |
| 32950906 | Background | van Dalen ASHM, van Haperen M, Swinkels JA, Grantcharov TP, Schijven MP. Development of a Model for Video-Assisted Postoperative Team Debriefing. J Surg Res. 2021 Jan;257:625-635. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2020.07.065. Epub 2020 Sep 17. |
| 28813552 | Background | Goldenberg MG, Jung J, Grantcharov TP. Using Data to Enhance Performance and Improve Quality and Safety in Surgery. JAMA Surg. 2017 Oct 1;152(10):972-973. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2017.2888. No abstract available. |
| 22502593 | Background | Mitchell L, Flin R, Yule S, Mitchell J, Coutts K, Youngson G. Development of a behavioural marker system for scrub practitioners' non-technical skills (SPLINTS system). J Eval Clin Pract. 2013 Apr;19(2):317-23. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2012.01825.x. Epub 2012 Apr 15. |
| 12697584 | Background | Fletcher G, Flin R, McGeorge P, Glavin R, Maran N, Patey R. Anaesthetists' Non-Technical Skills (ANTS): evaluation of a behavioural marker system. Br J Anaesth. 2003 May;90(5):580-8. doi: 10.1093/bja/aeg112. |
| 26425732 | Background | Whittaker G, Abboudi H, Khan MS, Dasgupta P, Ahmed K. Teamwork Assessment Tools in Modern Surgical Practice: A Systematic Review. Surg Res Pract. 2015;2015:494827. doi: 10.1155/2015/494827. Epub 2015 Sep 3. |
| 23116099 | Background | Zuckerman SL, France DJ, Green C, Leming-Lee S, Anders S, Mocco J. Surgical debriefing: a reliable roadmap to completing the patient safety cycle. Neurosurg Focus. 2012 Nov;33(5):E4. doi: 10.3171/2012.8.FOCUS12248. |
| 17560921 | Background | Hamad GG, Brown MT, Clavijo-Alvarez JA. Postoperative video debriefing reduces technical errors in laparoscopic surgery. Am J Surg. 2007 Jul;194(1):110-4. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2006.10.027. |
| 29916872 | Background | Jung JJ, Juni P, Lebovic G, Grantcharov T. First-year Analysis of the Operating Room Black Box Study. Ann Surg. 2020 Jan;271(1):122-127. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002863. |
| 32253558 | Background | van Dalen ASHM, Jansen M, van Haperen M, van Dieren S, Buskens CJ, Nieveen van Dijkum EJM, Bemelman WA, Grantcharov TP, Schijven MP. Implementing structured team debriefing using a Black Box in the operating room: surveying team satisfaction. Surg Endosc. 2021 Mar;35(3):1406-1419. doi: 10.1007/s00464-020-07526-3. Epub 2020 Apr 6. |
| 18945231 | Background | Rudolph JW, Simon R, Raemer DB, Eppich WJ. Debriefing as formative assessment: closing performance gaps in medical education. Acad Emerg Med. 2008 Nov;15(11):1010-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2008.00248.x. Epub 2008 Oct 20. |
| 27254527 | Background | Sawyer T, Eppich W, Brett-Fleegler M, Grant V, Cheng A. More Than One Way to Debrief: A Critical Review of Healthcare Simulation Debriefing Methods. Simul Healthc. 2016 Jun;11(3):209-17. doi: 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000148. |
| 19088616 | Background | Fanning RM, Gaba DM. The role of debriefing in simulation-based learning. Simul Healthc. 2007 Summer;2(2):115-25. doi: 10.1097/SIH.0b013e3180315539. No abstract available. |
| 15465961 | Background | Leonard M, Graham S, Bonacum D. The human factor: the critical importance of effective teamwork and communication in providing safe care. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004 Oct;13 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):i85-90. doi: 10.1136/qhc.13.suppl_1.i85. |
| Background | Speaking Up in the Operating Room: How Team Leaders Promote Learning in Interdisciplinary Action Teams - Edmondson - 2003 - Journal of Management Studies - Wiley Online Library |
| Background | Edmondson A. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm Sci Q. 1999;44(2):350-83. |
| 26451877 | Background | Schonfeld IS, Bianchi R. Burnout and Depression: Two Entities or One? J Clin Psychol. 2016 Jan;72(1):22-37. doi: 10.1002/jclp.22229. Epub 2015 Oct 9. |
| 33352940 | Background | Schaufeli WB, Desart S, De Witte H. Burnout Assessment Tool (BAT)-Development, Validity, and Reliability. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Dec 18;17(24):9495. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17249495. |
| 29551356 | Background | Epel ES, Crosswell AD, Mayer SE, Prather AA, Slavich GM, Puterman E, Mendes WB. More than a feeling: A unified view of stress measurement for population science. Front Neuroendocrinol. 2018 Apr;49:146-169. doi: 10.1016/j.yfrne.2018.03.001. Epub 2018 Mar 15. |
| 39461233 | Background | Bianchi R, Lindsater E, Vollan TE, Tesaker R, Mathisen HH, Oyangen SH, Ek B, Bo UW, Eilertsen ES, Hauglie-Hanssen T, Hunvik JS, Rasul MH, Schonfeld IS. Most people do not attribute their burnout symptoms to work. J Psychosom Res. 2024 Dec;187:111962. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2024.111962. Epub 2024 Oct 21. |
| 30848942 | Background | Bianchi R, Schonfeld IS, Laurent E. The Trouble With Burnout: An Update on Burnout-Depression Overlap. Am J Psychiatry. 2019 Jan 1;176(1):79. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2018.18091026. No abstract available. |
| 17666991 | Background | Williams ES, Manwell LB, Konrad TR, Linzer M. The relationship of organizational culture, stress, satisfaction, and burnout with physician-reported error and suboptimal patient care: results from the MEMO study. Health Care Manage Rev. 2007 Jul-Sep;32(3):203-12. doi: 10.1097/01.HMR.0000281626.28363.59. |
| 35162802 | Background | Edu-Valsania S, Laguia A, Moriano JA. Burnout: A Review of Theory and Measurement. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Feb 4;19(3):1780. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19031780. |
| Background | McGonigal Kelly. The upside of stress : why stress is good for you, and how to get good at it. 2016 . |
| 34124582 | Background | Lu S, Wei F, Li G. The evolution of the concept of stress and the framework of the stress system. Cell Stress. 2021 Apr 26;5(6):76-85. doi: 10.15698/cst2021.06.250. |
| 31082164 | Background | Chu B, Marwaha K, Sanvictores T, Awosika AO, Ayers D. Physiology, Stress Reaction. 2024 May 7. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2026 Jan-. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK541120/ |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D000077062 | Burnout, Psychological |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D013315 | Stress, Psychological |
| D001526 | Behavioral Symptoms |
| D001519 | Behavior |
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D003419 | Crisis Intervention |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D011613 | Psychotherapy |
| D004191 | Behavioral Disciplines and Activities |
Not provided
Not provided