Open AccessSystematic review of team performance in minimally invasive abdominal surgery
Author(s) -
van der Vliet W. J.,
Haenen S. M.,
SolisVelasco M.,
Dejong C. H. C.,
Neumann U. P.,
Moser A. J.,
Dam R. M.
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
bjs open
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.974
H-Index - 9
ISSN - 2474-9842
DOI - 10.1002/bjs5.50133
Subject(s) - medicine , teamwork , observational study , surgical team , patient safety , medical physics , abdominal surgery , construct validity , invasive surgery , general surgery , surgery , patient satisfaction , health care , pathology , political science , law , economics , economic growth
Background Adverse events in the operating theatre related to non‐technical skills and teamwork are still an issue. The influence of minimally invasive techniques on team performance and subsequent impact on patient safety remains unclear. The aim of this review was to assess the methodology used to objectify and rate team performance in minimally invasive abdominal surgery. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Studies on assessment of surgical team performance or non‐technical skills of the surgical team in the setting of minimally invasive abdominal surgery were included. Study aim, methodology, results and conclusion were extracted for qualitative synthesis. Results Sixteen studies involving 677 surgical procedures were included. All studies consisted of observational case series that used heterogeneous methodologies to assess team performance and were of low methodological quality. The most commonly used team performance objectification tools were ‘construct’‐ and ‘incident’‐based tools. Evidence of validity for the assessed outcome was spread widely across objectification tools, ranging from low to high. Diverse and poorly defined outcomes were reported. Conclusion Team demands for minimally invasive approaches to abdominal procedures remain unclear. The current literature consists of studies with heterogeneous methodology and poorly defined outcomes.