CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,283Interprofessional Education and CollaborationTeam Dynamics and PerformancePatient Safety and Medication Errors

Teamwork in healthcare: Key discoveries enabling safer, high-quality care.

Open access
Rosen, Michael A., DiazGranados, Deborah, Dietz, Aaron S., Benishek, Lauren E., Thompson, David, Pronovost, Peter J., Weaver, Sallie J.·2018·American Psychologist
DOI 10.1037/amp0000298PMC PMC6361117
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Few industries match the scale of health care. In the United States alone, an estimated 85% of the population has at least 1 health care encounter annually and at least one quarter of these people experience 4 to 9 encounters annually. A single visit requires collaboration among a multidisciplinary group of clinicians, administrative staff, patients, and their loved ones. Multiple visits often occur across different clinicians working in different organizations. Ineffective care coordination and the underlying suboptimal teamwork processes are a public health issue. Health care delivery systems exemplify complex organizations operating under high stakes in dynamic policy and regulatory environments. The coordination and delivery of safe, high-quality care demands reliable teamwork and collaboration within, as well as across, organizational, disciplinary, technical, and cultural boundaries. In this review, we synthesize the evidence examining teams and teamwork in health care delivery settings in order to characterize the current state of the science and to highlight gaps in which studies can further illuminate our evidence-based understanding of teamwork and collaboration. Specifically, we highlight evidence concerning (a) the relationship between teamwork and multilevel outcomes, (b) effective teamwork behaviors, (c) competencies (i.e., knowledge, skills, and attitudes) underlying effective teamwork in the health professions, (d) teamwork interventions, (e) team performance measurement strategies, and (f) the critical role context plays in shaping teamwork and collaboration in practice. We also distill potential avenues for future research and highlight opportunities to understand the translation, dissemination, and implementation of evidence-based teamwork principles into practice. (PsycINFO Database Record

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/amp0000298

Cites

109 of 109 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A typical clinical team composition is represented by 3 to 4 different agents.

    “we constructed a simulation using 3 to 4 different agents, representing a typical clinical team composition [31].”

    From Mitigating cognitive biases in clinical decision-making through multi-agent conversations using large language models: simulation study (2024) · cites this paper as [31]

    The “Teamwork Competencies in Nonepisodic Care Contexts” section describes a core bedside team of nurses, technicians, and an attending physician, supporting a simulation with several distinct roles. But the paper does not say that three to four agents represent a typical clinical team; “Health Care as a Vehicle to Advance the Science of Teams” instead describes team sizes ranging from dyads to extensive multiteam systems. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (2016, 11). Hospital survey on patient safety culture. Retrieved from http://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/quality-patient-safety/patientsafetyculture/hospital/index.html 21249886
  2. Arthur W, Day EA, Bennett W, & Portrey AM (Eds.). (2013). Individual and team skill decay: The science and implications for practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
  3. Cannon-Bowers J, Tannenbaum S, Salas E, & Volpe C (1995). Defining team competencies: Implications for training requirements and strategies In Guzzo R & Salas E (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 333– 380). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  4. Institute of Medicine. (2015). Measuring the impact of interprofessional education on collaborative practice and patient outcomes. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 26803876
  5. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, & Donaldson MS (Eds.). (1999). To err is human: Building a safer health system (Vol. 6). Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 25077248
  6. Rosen MA, Schiebel N, Salas E, Wu TS, Silvestri S, & King HB (2012). How can team performance be measured, assessed, and diagnosed In Salas E & Flush K (Eds.), Improving patient safety through teamwork and team training (pp. 59– 79). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  7. Weaver SJ, Feitosa J, & Salas E (2013). The science of teams: The theoretical drivers, models, and competencies of team performance for patient safety In Salas E & Frush K (Eds.), Improving patient safety through teamwork and team training (pp. 3– 26). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Rosen, M. A., DiazGranados, D., Dietz, A. S., Benishek, L. E., Thompson, D., Pronovost, P. J., & Weaver, S. J.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
  • National Cancer Institute (UA)
ORCID
Venue
American Psychologist
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2018-05
Volume
73
Issue
4
Pages
433-450
ISSN
  • 0003-066X (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-990X
DOI
10.1037/amp0000298
PMC
PMC6361117
OpenAlex
W2803733393
Cited by
1,283
References
106
Citations by year
2026: 167 · 2025: 218 · 2024: 249 · 2023: 182 · 2022: 174 · 2021: 125 · 2020: 124 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 1
FWCI
111.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Psychologist (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR002649)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Interprofessional Education and Collaboration
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
Keywords
healthcare teamwork, care coordination, patient safety, quality of care, teamwork behavior, teamwork skills, team performance measurement, organizational context, multidisciplinary collaboration, evidence-based practice implementation
MeSH terms
Cooperative Behavior, Delivery of Health Care, Group Processes, Humans, Interprofessional Relations, Patient Care Team, Quality of Health Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review