skip to main content


Title: Team Cognition in Handoffs: Relating System Factors, Team Cognition Functions and Outcomes in Two Handoff Processes
Objective This study investigates how team cognition occurs in care transitions from operating room (OR) to intensive care unit (ICU). We then seek to understand how the sociotechnical system and team cognition are related. Background Effective handoffs are critical to ensuring patient safety and have been the subject of many improvement efforts. However, the types of team-level cognitive processing during handoffs have not been explored, nor is it clear how the sociotechnical system shapes team cognition. Method We conducted this study in an academic, Level 1 trauma center in the Midwestern United States. Twenty-eight physicians (surgery, anesthesia, pediatric critical care) and nurses (OR, ICU) participated in semi-structured interviews. We performed qualitative content analysis and epistemic network analysis to understand the relationships between system factors, team cognition in handoffs and outcomes. Results Participants described three team cognition functions in handoffs—(1) information exchange, (2) assessment, and (3) planning and decision making; information exchange was mentioned most. Work system factors influenced team cognition. Inter-professional handoffs facilitated information exchange but included large teams with diverse backgrounds communicating, which can be inefficient. Intra-professional handoffs decreased team size and role diversity, which may simplify communication but increase information loss. Participants in inter-professional handoffs reflected on outcomes significantly more in relation to system factors and team cognition ( p < 0.001), while participants in intra-professional handoffs discussed handoffs as a task. Conclusion Handoffs include team cognition, which was influenced by work system design. Opportunities for handoff improvement include a flexibly standardized process and supportive tools/technologies. We recommend incorporating perspectives of the patient and family in future work.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1661036
NSF-PAR ID:
10341772
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
ISSN:
0018-7208
Page Range / eLocation ID:
001872082210863
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Cyber attackers commonly operate in teams, which may process information collectively and thus, may be best understood when the team is treated as the unit of analysis. Future research in Oppositional Human Factors (OHF) should consider the impact of team-influencing and team-level biases and the impact that defensive interventions have on team cognition in general. Existing measurement approaches using team interactions may be well suited for studying red teams, and how OHF interventions impact cyber attackers. 
    more » « less
  2. Abstract: 100 words Jurors are increasingly exposed to scientific information in the courtroom. To determine whether providing jurors with gist information would assist in their ability to make well-informed decisions, the present experiment utilized a Fuzzy Trace Theory-inspired intervention and tested it against traditional legal safeguards (i.e., judge instructions) by varying the scientific quality of the evidence. The results indicate that jurors who viewed high quality evidence rated the scientific evidence significantly higher than those who viewed low quality evidence, but were unable to moderate the credibility of the expert witness and apply damages appropriately resulting in poor calibration. Summary: <1000 words Jurors and juries are increasingly exposed to scientific information in the courtroom and it remains unclear when they will base their decisions on a reasonable understanding of the relevant scientific information. Without such knowledge, the ability of jurors and juries to make well-informed decisions may be at risk, increasing chances of unjust outcomes (e.g., false convictions in criminal cases). Therefore, there is a critical need to understand conditions that affect jurors’ and juries’ sensitivity to the qualities of scientific information and to identify safeguards that can assist with scientific calibration in the courtroom. The current project addresses these issues with an ecologically valid experimental paradigm, making it possible to assess causal effects of evidence quality and safeguards as well as the role of a host of individual difference variables that may affect perceptions of testimony by scientific experts as well as liability in a civil case. Our main goal was to develop a simple, theoretically grounded tool to enable triers of fact (individual jurors) with a range of scientific reasoning abilities to appropriately weigh scientific evidence in court. We did so by testing a Fuzzy Trace Theory-inspired intervention in court, and testing it against traditional legal safeguards. Appropriate use of scientific evidence reflects good calibration – which we define as being influenced more by strong scientific information than by weak scientific information. Inappropriate use reflects poor calibration – defined as relative insensitivity to the strength of scientific information. Fuzzy Trace Theory (Reyna & Brainerd, 1995) predicts that techniques for improving calibration can come from presentation of easy-to-interpret, bottom-line “gist” of the information. Our central hypothesis was that laypeople’s appropriate use of scientific information would be moderated both by external situational conditions (e.g., quality of the scientific information itself, a decision aid designed to convey clearly the “gist” of the information) and individual differences among people (e.g., scientific reasoning skills, cognitive reflection tendencies, numeracy, need for cognition, attitudes toward and trust in science). Identifying factors that promote jurors’ appropriate understanding of and reliance on scientific information will contribute to general theories of reasoning based on scientific evidence, while also providing an evidence-based framework for improving the courts’ use of scientific information. All hypotheses were preregistered on the Open Science Framework. Method Participants completed six questionnaires (counterbalanced): Need for Cognition Scale (NCS; 18 items), Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT; 7 items), Abbreviated Numeracy Scale (ABS; 6 items), Scientific Reasoning Scale (SRS; 11 items), Trust in Science (TIS; 29 items), and Attitudes towards Science (ATS; 7 items). Participants then viewed a video depicting a civil trial in which the defendant sought damages from the plaintiff for injuries caused by a fall. The defendant (bar patron) alleged that the plaintiff (bartender) pushed him, causing him to fall and hit his head on the hard floor. Participants were informed at the outset that the defendant was liable; therefore, their task was to determine if the plaintiff should be compensated. Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 6 experimental conditions: 2 (quality of scientific evidence: high vs. low) x 3 (safeguard to improve calibration: gist information, no-gist information [control], jury instructions). An expert witness (neuroscientist) hired by the court testified regarding the scientific strength of fMRI data (high [90 to 10 signal-to-noise ratio] vs. low [50 to 50 signal-to-noise ratio]) and gist or no-gist information both verbally (i.e., fairly high/about average) and visually (i.e., a graph). After viewing the video, participants were asked if they would like to award damages. If they indicated yes, they were asked to enter a dollar amount. Participants then completed the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule-Modified Short Form (PANAS-MSF; 16 items), expert Witness Credibility Scale (WCS; 20 items), Witness Credibility and Influence on damages for each witness, manipulation check questions, Understanding Scientific Testimony (UST; 10 items), and 3 additional measures were collected, but are beyond the scope of the current investigation. Finally, participants completed demographic questions, including questions about their scientific background and experience. The study was completed via Qualtrics, with participation from students (online vs. in-lab), MTurkers, and non-student community members. After removing those who failed attention check questions, 469 participants remained (243 men, 224 women, 2 did not specify gender) from a variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds (70.2% White, non-Hispanic). Results and Discussion There were three primary outcomes: quality of the scientific evidence, expert credibility (WCS), and damages. During initial analyses, each dependent variable was submitted to a separate 3 Gist Safeguard (safeguard, no safeguard, judge instructions) x 2 Scientific Quality (high, low) Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Consistent with hypotheses, there was a significant main effect of scientific quality on strength of evidence, F(1, 463)=5.099, p=.024; participants who viewed the high quality evidence rated the scientific evidence significantly higher (M= 7.44) than those who viewed the low quality evidence (M=7.06). There were no significant main effects or interactions for witness credibility, indicating that the expert that provided scientific testimony was seen as equally credible regardless of scientific quality or gist safeguard. Finally, for damages, consistent with hypotheses, there was a marginally significant interaction between Gist Safeguard and Scientific Quality, F(2, 273)=2.916, p=.056. However, post hoc t-tests revealed significantly higher damages were awarded for low (M=11.50) versus high (M=10.51) scientific quality evidence F(1, 273)=3.955, p=.048 in the no gist with judge instructions safeguard condition, which was contrary to hypotheses. The data suggest that the judge instructions alone are reversing the pattern, though nonsignificant, those who received the no gist without judge instructions safeguard awarded higher damages in the high (M=11.34) versus low (M=10.84) scientific quality evidence conditions F(1, 273)=1.059, p=.30. Together, these provide promising initial results indicating that participants were able to effectively differentiate between high and low scientific quality of evidence, though inappropriately utilized the scientific evidence through their inability to discern expert credibility and apply damages, resulting in poor calibration. These results will provide the basis for more sophisticated analyses including higher order interactions with individual differences (e.g., need for cognition) as well as tests of mediation using path analyses. [References omitted but available by request] Learning Objective: Participants will be able to determine whether providing jurors with gist information would assist in their ability to award damages in a civil trial. 
    more » « less
  3. My dissertation research to date has focused on understanding how incident management teams (IMTs), hastily formed multidisciplinary multiteam systems, cognitively function together as adaptive, joint cognitive systems-of-systems embedded in complex sociotechnical systems. Catastrophic disasters such as Hurricane Harvey highlight the importance of collective efforts for adaptive incident management. Team cognition has emerged as a coordinating mechanism in safety-critical disciplines; however, little is known about cognition in IMTs. Through a scoping review of existing definitions, I proposed an expanded definition that deliberately takes into account IMT’s unique contextual characteristics, based on three premises: cognition in IMTs (1) manifests as interactions among humans, teams, and technologies at multiple levels of multiteam systems, (2) aims to achieve the system-level cognitive goals of perceiving (P), diagnosing, (D), and adapting (A) to information, and (3) serves as an open communication platform for adaptive coordination.Then, I operationalized our proposed definition in a simulated environment as an initial attempt to model IMTs’ system-level cognition. Based on several observations of IMTs’ naturalistic interactive behaviors under different types of disaster scenarios, I proposed a model that can capture how IMTs as joint cognitive systems (or systems-of-systems) perceive (P), diagnose, (D), and adapt (A) to information, i.e., perceive, diagnose, adapt (P, D, A) model. With an emphasis on system-level cognitive goals that applies to multiple units of analysis (e.g., individuals, dyads, teams, and multiteam systems), I could gain an understanding of system-level cognitive adaptation in incident management. Using the P, D, A model as a base platform, I expect to discuss resilience as cognitive adaptation processes along with its implications on human information processing and joint cognitive systems theories.I became a Ph.D. candidate after successfully proposing my dissertation research in last June. After completing data collection and processing, I am currently working on data analysis and manuscript preparation. As a part of NSF-funded project (NSF EArly-concept Grant for Exploratory Research, #1724676), I believe my dissertation work has a potential to practically impact scenario-based training practices of incident management, and thereby lead to a more rapid and better coordinated decision-making in saving lives and infrastructures. 
    more » « less
  4. Laboratory testing is an integral tool in the management of patient care in hospitals, particularly in intensive care units (ICUs). There exists an inherent trade-off in the selection and timing of lab tests between considerations of the expected utility in clinical decision-making of a given test at a specific time, and the associated cost or risk it poses to the patient. In this work, we introduce a framework that learns policies for ordering lab tests which optimizes for this trade-off. Our approach uses batch off-policy reinforcement learning with a composite reward function based on clinical imperatives, applied to data that include examples of clinicians ordering labs for patients. To this end, we develop and extend principles of Pareto optimality to improve the selection of actions based on multiple reward function components while respecting typical procedural considerations and prioritization of clinical goals in the ICU. Our experiments show that we can estimate a policy that reduces the frequency of lab tests and optimizes timing to minimize information redundancy. We also find that the estimated policies typically suggest ordering lab tests well ahead of critical onsets—such as mechanical ventilation or dialysis—that depend on the lab results. We evaluate our approach by quantifying how these policies may initiate earlier onset of treatment. 
    more » « less
  5. Background Heart failure is a leading cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide. Acute heart failure, broadly defined as rapid onset of new or worsening signs and symptoms of heart failure, often requires hospitalization and admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). This acute condition is highly heterogeneous and less well-understood as compared to chronic heart failure. The ICU, through detailed and continuously monitored patient data, provides an opportunity to retrospectively analyze decompensation and heart failure to evaluate physiological states and patient outcomes. Objective The goal of this study is to examine the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors among those admitted to ICUs and to evaluate combinations of clinical features that are predictive of decompensation events, such as the onset of acute heart failure, using machine learning techniques. To accomplish this objective, we leveraged tele-ICU data from over 200 hospitals across the United States. Methods We evaluated the feasibility of predicting decompensation soon after ICU admission for 26,534 patients admitted without a history of heart failure with specific heart failure risk factors (ie, coronary artery disease, hypertension, and myocardial infarction) and 96,350 patients admitted without risk factors using remotely monitored laboratory, vital signs, and discrete physiological measurements. Multivariate logistic regression and random forest models were applied to predict decompensation and highlight important features from combinations of model inputs from dissimilar data. Results The most prevalent risk factor in our data set was hypertension, although most patients diagnosed with heart failure were admitted to the ICU without a risk factor. The highest heart failure prediction accuracy was 0.951, and the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.9503 with random forest and combined vital signs, laboratory values, and discrete physiological measurements. Random forest feature importance also highlighted combinations of several discrete physiological features and laboratory measures as most indicative of decompensation. Timeline analysis of aggregate vital signs revealed a point of diminishing returns where additional vital signs data did not continue to improve results. Conclusions Heart failure risk factors are common in tele-ICU data, although most patients that are diagnosed with heart failure later in an ICU stay presented without risk factors making a prediction of decompensation critical. Decompensation was predicted with reasonable accuracy using tele-ICU data, and optimal data extraction for time series vital signs data was identified near a 200-minute window size. Overall, results suggest combinations of laboratory measurements and vital signs are viable for early and continuous prediction of patient decompensation. 
    more » « less