Cited by 366Team Dynamics and PerformanceInterprofessional Education and CollaborationPatient Safety and Medication Errors

Do team processes really have an effect on clinical performance? A systematic literature review

Open access
Schmutz, J., Manser, T.·2013·British Journal of Anaesthesia

Abstract

There is a growing literature on the relationship between team processes and clinical performance. The purpose of this review is to summarize these articles and examine the impact of team process behaviours on clinical performance. We conducted a literature search in five major databases. Inclusion criteria were: English peer-reviewed papers published between January 2001 and May 2012, which showed or tried to show (i) a statistical relationship of a team process variable and clinical performance or (ii) an improvement of a performance variable through a team process intervention. Study quality was assessed using predefined quality indicators. For every study, we calculated the relevant effect sizes. We included 28 studies in the review, seven of which were intervention studies. Every study reported at least one significant relationship between team processes or an intervention and performance. Also, some non-significant effects were reported. Most of the reported effect sizes were large or medium. The study quality ranged from medium to high. The studies are highly diverse regarding the specific team process behaviours investigated and also regarding the methods used. However, they suggest that team process behaviours do influence clinical performance and that training results in increased performance. Future research should rely on existing theoretical frameworks, valid, and reliable methods to assess processes such as teamwork or coordination and focus on the development of adequate tools to assess process performance, linking them with outcomes in the clinical setting.

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 · 10.1093/bja/aes513

Cites

81 of 81 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?

  • Effective team-based care and higher quality teamwork are associated with improvements in care access and quality, patient safety, patient satisfaction, clinical outcomes, and costs.

    “Effective team-based care and higher quality teamwork are associated with improvements in care access and quality, patient safety, patient satisfaction, clinical outcomes, and costs [2, 4–9].”

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: 4

  1. 2 Manojlovich M, DeCicco B. Healthy work environments, nursephysician communication, and patients outcomes. Am J Crit Care 2007; 16 : 536-43
  2. 20 Anderson N, Ones DS, Sinangil HK, Viswesvaran C. Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology: Personnel Psychology . London: Sage Publications Ltd, 2001
  3. 69 OglesBM,LunnenKM,BonesteelK.Clinicalsignificance:history,application, and current practice. Clin Psychol Rev 2001; 21 : 421-46
  4. 73 Rasch B, Friese M, Hofmann W, Naumann E. Quantitative Methoden: Einfuhrung in die Statistik 1 . 2 Edn. Heidelberg: Springer Medizin Verlag, 2006

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schmutz, J., & Manser, T.
Affiliations
University of Fribourg (CH)
Corresponding author
Schmutz, J.
Venue
British Journal of Anaesthesia
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-04
Volume
110
Issue
4
Pages
529-544
ISSN
0007-0912 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2138709149
Cited by
366
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 40 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 9
FWCI
4.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Anaesthesia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • reroDoc Digital Library (acceptedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • ETH Zürich Research Collection
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
Swiss National Science Foundation (PP00P1_128616)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Interprofessional Education and Collaboration
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
Keywords
team processes, clinical performance, teamwork, anesthesia, coordination, effect size
MeSH terms
Behavior, Clinical Competence, Communication, Data Collection, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Leadership, Patient Care Team, Research Design, Treatment Outcome

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