CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 11Interprofessional Education and CollaborationTeam Dynamics and PerformancePatient Safety and Medication Errors

Context matters: groupthink and outcomes of health care teams

Madigosky, Wendy, van Schaik, Sandrijn·2016·Medical Education
DOI 10.1111/medu.12989
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

It's good to have assumptions challenged. Much of health care has accepted that teamwork is beneficial, but in this issue Kaba et al., in ‘Are we at risk of groupthink in our approach to teamwork interventions in health care?’,1 encourage us to take a pause and consider that it might also be harmful or inconsequential. After reviewing the paucity of experimental evidence supporting teamwork interventions and interprofessional education (IPE) in health care, the authors raise concerns about teamwork competencies related to collaborative decision making, such as shared mental models, team orientation and mutual trust. Drawing on the psychology literature, they reveal that these competencies have risks, including cognitive overload (too many ideas during brainstorming), social loafing (some team members are not engaged), groupthink (pressure to conform) and group conformity bias (preference for consistency). They suggest that context determines whether or not collaborative decision making is good (improves decision making), bad (leads to poor decisions) or neutral, and that focusing on context and exploring interventions that lessen the risks may improve outcomes. Invoking the utilitarian perspective of the value of IPE, they assert that patient outcome measures should solely determine the effectiveness of teamwork and IPE. Finally, the authors propose an experimental research agenda for teamwork and IPE to define ‘which outcomes can be achieved by which interventions in which c…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/medu.12989

Cites

4 of 4 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?

  • Two articles provided counterpoints to the argument that groupthink is harmful in health care.

    “Two articles provided counterpoints to the argument that groupthink is harmful in health care (Kerry et al., 2017; Madigosky & van Schaik, 2016).”

    From Groupthink among health professional teams in patient care: A scoping review (2022) · cites this paper as Madigosky & van Schaik, 2016

  • Two included articles argued that health care is inherently collaborative and the concern for groupthink is outweighed by the benefits of teamwork in health care.

    “Furthermore, health care is inherently collaborative and the concern for groupthink is outweighed by the benefits of teamwork in health care.”

    From Groupthink among health professional teams in patient care: A scoping review (2022) · cites this paper as Madigosky & van Schaik, 2016

  • Two included articles argued that health professional teams may not be subject to groupthink due to their heterogeneity in perspectives, experiences, and roles.

    “Health professional teams may not be subject to groupthink due to their heterogeneity in perspectives, experiences, and roles.”

    From Groupthink among health professional teams in patient care: A scoping review (2022) · cites this paper as Madigosky & van Schaik, 2016

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Madigosky, W., & van Schaik, S.
Affiliations
  • Aurora Colorado USA
  • San Francisco California USA
Corresponding author
Madigosky, Wendy
ORCID
Madigosky, Wendy
Venue
Medical Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-03-15
Volume
50
Issue
4
Pages
387-389
ISSN
  • 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2923
DOI
10.1111/medu.12989
OpenAlex
W2299846180
Cited by
11
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2
FWCI
3.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Medical Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
groupthink, healthcare teamwork, interprofessional education, collaborative decision-making, shared mental models, team orientation, mutual trust, cognitive overload, social loafing, conformity bias, wisdom of crowds, team heterogeneity, patient outcomes, team performance, job satisfaction, burnout, team diversity
MeSH terms
Clinical Decision-Making, Intersectoral Collaboration, Clinical Competence, Group Processes, Humans, Interprofessional Relations, Patient Care Team, Outcome Assessment, 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