RATIONALE: Effective teamwork is fundamental to the management of medical emergencies, and yet the best method to teach teamwork skills to trainees remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: In a cohort of incoming internal medicine interns, we tested the hypothesis that expert demonstration of teamwork principles and participation in high-fidelity simulation would each result in objectively assessed teamwork behavior superior to traditional didactics. METHODS: This was a randomized, controlled, parallel-group trial comparing three teamwork teaching modalities for incoming internal medicine interns. Participants in a single-day orientation at the Vanderbilt University Center for Experiential Learning and Assessment were randomized 1:1:1 to didactic, demonstration-based, or simulation-based instruction and then evaluated in their management of a simulated crisis by five independent, blinded observers using the Teamwork Behavioral Rater score. Clinical performance was assessed using the American Heart Association Advanced Cardiac Life Support algorithm and a novel "Recognize, Respond, Reassess" score. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Participants randomized to didactics (n = 18), demonstration (n = 17), and simulation (n = 17) were similar at baseline. The primary outcome of average overall Teamwork Behavioral Rater score for those who received demonstration-based training was similar to simulation participation (4.40 ± 1.15 vs. 4.10 ± 0.95, P = 0.917) and significantly higher than didactic instruction (4.40 ± 1.15 vs. 3.10 ± 0.51, P = 0.045). Clinical performance scores were similar between the three groups and correlated only weakly with teamwork behavior (coefficient of determination [Rs(2)] = 0.267, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among incoming internal medicine interns, teamwork training by expert demonstration resulted in similar teamwork behavior to participation in high-fidelity simulation and was more effective than traditional didactics. Clinical performance was largely independent of teamwork behavior and did not differ between training modalities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Semler et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: