Cited by 74Simulation-Based Education in HealthcarePatient Safety and Medication ErrorsTeam Dynamics and Performance

Beyond crisis resource management: new frontiers in human factors training for acute care medicine

Petrosoniak, Andrew, Hicks, Christopher M.·2013·Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology

Abstract

Purpose of review Error is ubiquitous in medicine, particularly during critical events and resuscitation. A significant proportion of adverse events can be attributed to inadequate team-based skills such as communication, leadership, situation awareness and resource utilization. Aviation-based crisis resource management (CRM) training using high-fidelity simulation has been proposed as a strategy to improve team behaviours. This review will address key considerations in CRM training and outline recommendations for the future of human factors education in healthcare. Recent findings A critical examination of the current literature yields several important considerations to guide the development and implementation of effective simulation-based CRM training. These include defining a priori domain-specific objectives, creating an immersive environment that encourages deliberate practice and transfer-appropriate processing, and the importance of effective team debriefing. Building on research from high-risk industry, we suggest that traditional CRM training may be augmented with new training techniques that promote the development of shared mental models for team and task processes, address the effect of acute stress on team performance, and integrate strategies to improve clinical reasoning and the detection of cognitive errors. Summary The evolution of CRM training involves a 'Triple Threat' approach that integrates mental model theory for team and task processes, training for s…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/aco.0000000000000007

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Success for high-acuity, low-opportunity events like front of neck airway requires frequent, deliberate practice using simulation.

    “Success for high-acuity, low-opportunity events like this requires frequent, deliberate practice using simulation.118”

    From Airway Management in Trauma (2018) · cites this paper as [118]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Petrosoniak, A., & Hicks, C. M.
Affiliations
St. Michael's Hospital (CA)
Corresponding author
Hicks, Christopher M.
Venue
Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology
Published
2013-12
Volume
26
Issue
6
Pages
699-706
ISSN
0952-7907 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1982449437
Cited by
74
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
0.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Simulation-Based Education in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
Keywords
crisis resource management, high-fidelity simulation, human factors education, team debriefing, shared mental models, acute stress, clinical reasoning, cognitive errors, error theory, metacognition, resuscitation, adverse events, transfer-appropriate processing, deliberate practice, situational awareness, communication, leadership
MeSH terms
Clinical Competence, Critical Care, Decision Making, Education, Medical, Humans, Inservice Training, Patient Care Team, Resuscitation, Patient Simulation

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