See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/234070782

Interprofessional education in team communication: Working together to

improve patient safety

Article  in  BMJ quality & safety · January 2013

DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-000952 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

267 794

10 authors, including:

Douglas Michael Brock Erin Abu-Rish Blakeney

University of Washington Seattle University of Washington Seattle
86 PUBLICATIONS   2,069 CITATIONS    33 PUBLICATIONS   944 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Chia-Ju Chiu Dana Hammer

University of Washington Seattle 25 PUBLICATIONS   1,153 CITATIONS   
2 PUBLICATIONS   446 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Conciliation médicamenteuse View project

Handoffs View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Douglas Michael Brock on 06 January 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

BMJ Quality & Safety Online First, published on 3 January 2013 as 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-000952
1
Department of Family Medicine
and MEDEX Northwest,
University of Washington,
Seattle, Washington, USA
2
Department of Biobehavioral
Nursing, University of
Washington, Seattle,
Washington, USA
3
Department of Pharmacy,
University of Washington,
Seattle, Washington, USA
4
Department of Health Services,
University of Washington,
Seattle, Washington, USA
5
Department of Biomedical
Informatics and Medical
Education, University of
Washington, Seattle,
Washington, USA
Correspondence to
Dr Douglas Brock, Department
of Family Medicine and MEDEX
Northwest, University of
Washington, 4311-11th Ave NE,
Suite 200; Seattle, WA 98195,
USA;
dmbrock@u.washington.edu
Received 1 March 2012
Revised 10 October 2012
Accepted 14 November 2012
To cite: Brock D, Abu-Rish E,
Chiu C-R, et al. Quality and
Safety in Health Care
Published Online First: [ please
include Day Month Year]
doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2012-
000952
Brock D, et al. Quality and Safety in Health Care 2013;0:1–10. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2012-000952
Copyright Article author (or their employer) 2013. Produced by BMJ Publishing Group Ltd under licence.
INNOVATIONS IN EDUCATION
Interprofessional education in team
communication: working together to
improve patient safety
Douglas Brock,1 Erin Abu-Rish,2 Chia-Ru Chiu,2 Dana Hammer,3
Sharon Wilson,2 Linda Vorvick,1 Katherine Blondon,4 Douglas Schaad,5
Debra Liner,2 Brenda Zierler2
ABSTRACT
Background Communication failures in
healthcare teams are associated with medical errors
and negative health outcomes. These findings have
increased emphasis on training future health
professionals to work effectively within teams. The
Team Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance
and Patient Safety (TeamSTEPPS) communication
training model, widely employed to train
healthcare teams, has been less commonly used
to train student interprofessional teams. The
present study reports the effectiveness of a
simulation-based interprofessional TeamSTEPPS
training in impacting student attitudes,
knowledge and skills around interprofessional
communication.
Methods Three hundred and six fourth-year
medical, third-year nursing, second-year pharmacy
and second-year physician assistant students took
part in a 4 h training that included a 1 h
TeamSTEPPS didactic session and three 1 h team
simulation and feedback sessions. Students worked
in groups balanced by a professional programme in
a self-selected focal area (adult acute, paediatric,
obstetrics). Preassessments and postassessments
were used for examining attitudes, beliefs and
reported opportunities to observe or participate in
team communication behaviours.
Results One hundred and forty-nine students
(48.7%) completed the preassessments and
postassessments. Significant differences were
found for attitudes toward team communication
(p<0.001), motivation (p<0.001), utility of training
(p<0.001) and self-efficacy (p=0.005). Significant
attitudinal shifts for TeamSTEPPS skills included,
team structure (p=0.002), situation monitoring
(p<0.001), mutual support (p=0.003) and
communication (p=0.002). Significant shifts were
reported for knowledge of TeamSTEPPS (p<0.001),
advocating for patients (p<0.001) and
communicating in interprofessional teams
(p<0.001).
Conclusions Effective team communication is
important in patient safety. We demonstrate
positive attitudinal and knowledge effects in a
large-scale interprofessional TeamSTEPPS-based
training involving four student professions.
INTRODUCTION
An increased focus on interprofessional
education (IPE) has resulted from several
influences. Among the most compelling is
the growing recognition and evidence
that improved communication and col-
laboration by interprofessional teams
leads to better delivery and access to care.
In its 2004 sentinel event data report,1
the Joint Commission listed leadership,
communication, coordination and human
factors as among the leading root causes
of sentinel events. Failures in communica-
tion within interprofessional healthcare
teams are established causes of medical
error2 and negative health outcomes,1 3 4
including death.5 In addition, team com-
munication failures have significant eco-
nomic impacts that may reduce quality
and safety, or access to care.1 6
The relationship between team commu-
nication and patient safety4 has increased
the emphasis placed on training future
health professionals to work within
teams.7–9 However, few studies have
sought to demonstrate that prepractice
interprofessional team training is effective
in building the foundations for later prac-
tice within healthcare teams. Increasingly,
educators have sought to create interpro-
fessional trainings that teach the key ele-
ments of effective teamwork in simulated
settings that allows for the practise of skills
in a stimulus-rich but controlled environ-
ment. Interprofessional team simulation
1
 Innovations in education
Figure 1 Team Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance
and Patient Safety communications model.
provides a means to both learn and practise safe team-
work skills.
With this paper, we describe a sophisticated inter-
professional team-based training, and take the import-
ant first step of demonstrating that participating
students can learn critical elements of team communi-
cation, and to value team functioning. We also dem-
onstrate the utility of new self-report instruments.
Our study employs an established team communi-
cation framework,10 11 Team Strategies and Tools
to Enhance Performance and Patient Safety
(TeamSTEPPS),12 in teaching skills using manikin
simulators and standardised patients. While excep-
tions exist, training efforts commonly neglect to
provide evidence that learning has occurred, and that
learning is transferable to clinical settings. The
purpose of this paper is to describe and demonstrate
the effectiveness of an innovative interprofessional
training effort using simulation.
BACKGROUND
The curriculum and assessment tools described in this
study were developed as part of a grant funded through
the Josiah Macy Jr Foundation for the purpose of
improving communication within learning teams,
enhancing team-based care, increasing awareness of
respective roles and responsibilities, and promoting an
understanding of interprofessional values and ethics.
Faculty from the schools of medicine, nursing, phar-
macy and the MEDEX Northwest Physician Assistant
(PA) Training Program worked to create novel and dis-
tributable training tools for team communication aimed
at reducing errors and improving patient safety. The
goal was to create new collaborations, while strengthen-
ing and leveraging existing interprofessional activities—
where students from different disciplines work
together—and intraprofessional activities—where stu-
dents work only with students within their discipline—
2 Brock D, et al. Quality and Safety in Health Care 2013;0:1–10. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2012-000952
designed to promote incorporation of team communica-
tion into programme curricula across the health profes-
sion schools.
Interprofessional team communication is defined by
skills learned and later modified and reinforced when
healthcare workers work collaboratively to provide
competent care. Competence to practise safely
requires effective communication with patients and
colleagues, active listening, assertiveness, respect and
timeliness. Failures occur when vital information is
not communicated between team members, or team
members incorrectly interpret messages. Failures to
communicate information may result from adversarial
relationships, roles that are not clearly defined, or
insufficiently developed communication pathways
within teams. Incorrect interpretations occur when
providers use different terms to convey information,
accept incomplete information, or assign different
weights to communications. In each case, the result
may be an error.
The educational framework for the development of
the training content was based on TeamSTEPPS.12
TeamSTEPPS was developed from research and devel-
opment collaborations between the Department of
Defense (DoD) Patient Safety Program and the Agency
for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), and is
rooted in crew resource management13–15 (CRM).
Increasingly, there are calls for the incorporation of
team training into clinical settings16 stemming from
successful applications within surgery and trauma-
focused settings.17–19 More recently, clinician educa-
tors have sought to integrate TeamSTEPPS tools11 16)
into healthcare education. Simulation-based training
provides an excellent vehicle for student teams to work
collaboratively in a realistic yet structured environment
without risks to patients.20–22
Study goals
The overall goal of the interprofessional training was
for students to acquire effective interprofessional team
communication skills. Taking part in these exercises
allowed students the opportunity to practise and
observe interprofessional communication, and
through facilitated debriefings learn what proved most
effective. Our study goal sought to demonstrate that
interprofessional students would report enhanced
readiness23 through improved self-efficacy,24 25 motiv-
ation, positive attitudes and practice opportunities.
We proposed assessing testable research questions
aligned with our training goals. Following training,
would interprofessional students report
1. Improved attitudes, motivation and self-efficacy to
working within interprofessional healthcare teams?
2. Having observed and practised key team communication
skills?
3. Increased understanding of interprofessional team skills?

METHODS
Case development
Three adult acute cases (two adult males and one
teenage male) to demonstrate communication across
members of a healthcare team were developed collab-
oratively by a team of 9 interprofessional faculty, 19
student volunteers from various health profession pro-
grammes and 6 staff members. They were designed to
provide opportunities for an interprofessional team to
demonstrate team communication strategies and skills
in an acute situation, while delivering care to patients
and their families. The three adult acute cases were:
asthma exacerbation in a teenager (simulator with
standardised family member), congestive heart failure
in an elderly male (standardised patient) and supra-
ventricular tachycardia in a male postsurgery (simula-
tor with standardised family member). Each of the
three adult acute cases, and an adapted TeamSTEPPS
training, were tested with 49 students in June 2010.
Following the successful demonstration of the three
adult cases, we designed three paediatrics and three
obstetrics cases to reflect parallel skills requirements,
and provide comparable team communication skills
training in areas aligned with students’ career plans.
The paediatric cases were: severe asthma, acute
seizure and sepsis (each using a simulator). The three
obstetric cases were precipitous vaginal delivery, mild
postpartum haemorrhage and mild postpartum haem-
orrhage complicated by error (each using a standar-
dised patient). Each of the cases are described and
available with toolkits for implementing and develop-
ing simulations on the Center for Health Sciences
Interprofessional Education, Practice and Research
website (http://www.collaborate.uw.edu).
Interprofessional Team Capstone
We used an existing capstone week held by the
University of Washington School of Medicine during
the last week of classes as an opportunity to bring
graduating medical bachelors of science in nursing,
PharmD and masters PA students together for inter-
active interprofessional training sessions. Participation
in the interprofessional training was required for all
students except for the PA students who were volun-
teers. Students participated in one 4 h training block
during the capstone week.
The Interprofessional Team Capstone experience
was designed to train students from four healthcare
professional programmes to practise together as a
team. Students had the option to participate in one of
three separate (focal area) trainings: (1) adult acute
care (2) paediatric, or (3) obstetric cases. This break-
down allowed students to select an area of practice
most similar to their anticipated specialty. The training
sessions occurred at two academic medical centre
training facilities across a 4-day period. In each
student focal area, the educational intervention
included a didactic session and three simulated
Brock D, et al. Quality and Safety in Health Care 2013;0:1–10. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2012-000952
Innovations in education
exercises. Following an icebreaker activity developed
to introduce interprofessional teamwork, students had
40 min of didactic instruction on patient safety and
TeamSTEPPS communication skills.
For the simulation sessions, students were divided
into interprofessional teams with balanced compos-
ition across healthcare programmes. The teams then
completed three simulated exercises (approximately
15 min each). Two exercises used a manikin simulator
and a standardised family member, and the third used
only a standardised patient. Each simulation was pre-
ceded by an introduction (eg, case materials and
ground rules), and was followed immediately by a
facilitated debriefing session. When not actively par-
ticipating in a simulation, or when there were too
many students to accommodate, students were asked
to step back and observe. Students rotated through
observer and participant roles throughout the three
cases. All students (observers and participants) partici-
pated in the end-of-case debriefings. Student teams
met again as a large group for a final wrap-up with
the facilitators to review what they had learned.
Measuring the intervention’s impact
To assess the impact of the training on student learning,
we developed and selected instruments to assess atti-
tudes, skills and knowledge (table 1). Instruments were
developed and reviewed by the UW Macy assessment
team, consisting of a physician and PA educator (LV), a
visiting physician fellow (KB), a nurse practitioner (SW),
a pharmacist (DH), two medical educators (DB, DS), a
nursing educator (BZ) and two nursing graduate stu-
dents (CC, EAR). These instruments included attitudes
towards TeamSTEPPS communication skills, self-
reported knowledge, motivation to implement these
skills, their value or utility and student self-efficacy in
being able to implement these skills in practice.
Student respondents were described by several
demographic variables. These included the student
educational programme, sex, age, healthcare experi-
ence prior to entering their current educational pro-
gramme, and previous familiarity in working with
healthcare teams (eg, respiratory tech or medic).
Two instruments were administered, both pretrain-
ing and post-training. To assess attitudes towards team
communication we administered the TeamSTEPPS
Teamwork Attitudes Questionnaire (TAQ).26 The
TAQ is a validated instrument containing 30
Likert-type items assessing attitudes towards the five
dimensions (Team Structure, Leadership, Situational
Awareness, Mutual Support and Communication)
underlying the TeamSTEPPS communications model.
Attitudes were assessed by the Attitudes, Motivation,
Utility and Self-Efficacy (AMUSE); a 21 Likert-type
item instrument constructed to assess AMUSE. The
attitudes, motivation and utility items were developed
by the authors in consideration of existing instruments
to assess similar team constructs.23 27–30 The self-
3
 Innovations in education

Table 1 TeamSTEPPS communication behaviours and assessment instruments

Preinstruments and postinstruments
TeamSTEPPS: Teamwork Attitudes
Scale (TAQ)26
AMUSE*
Postonly instruments
Key communication behaviours:
frequency*
Key concepts: understanding*
Training program evaluation
Participant evaluations*
*Developed by study team.
†Copies of all instruments available at: http://www.collaborate.uw.edu/educators-toolkit/tools-for-evaluation.html-0
TeamSTEPPS, Team Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance and Patient Safety.
30 Likert-type items (1=Strongly Disagree, to 5=Strongly Agree) assessing attitudes towards the five dimensions
(Team Structure, Leadership, Situational Awareness, Mutual Support and Communication) underlying the
TeamSTEPPS communications model
21 Likert-type items (1=Strongly Disagree, to 5=Strongly Agree) assessing Attitudes, Motivation, Utility and
Self-Efficacy toward interprofessional team skills
15 self-report frequency items, asking the extent to which the training cases provided the opportunity to practice
or observe key communication behaviours. Response options ranged on a 5-point scale from ‘Never’ to
‘Frequently’. Examples included whether team members ‘… were consulted for their experience’ or ‘… asked
for assistance’
10 Likert-type item pairs (1=Strongly Disagree, to 5=Strongly Agree). Instrument asked respondents to rate their
understanding of key concepts both before and after training (eg, ‘BEFORE participating in training I had a good
understanding of the benefits and application of SBAR’ and ‘AFTER completing the training I have a BETTER
understanding of the benefits and application of SBAR’)
Completed by all students following the simulation training.
1. Report of training value by programme segment (eg, TeamSTEPPS introduction, final debrief) (1=Not at all
valuable, to 5=Highly valuable)
2. Likert-type items (1=Strongly Disagree, to 5=Strongly Agree) addressing level of agreement with specific
aspects of the training. For instance, whether the programme provided a realistic experience of the challenges
faced when working in interprofessional teams
3. Students were also asked to describe their most valuable learning experience in the training

efficacy items were guided by Bandura’s recommenda-
tions for developing scales to assess efficacy31 and fol-
lowing Bandura’s theory of agency,25 32 that people
act on their environment, set goals and monitor pro-
gress, learning both through direct experience as well
as vicariously through observing others.
Two new instruments and the AMUSE were developed
specifically to assess whether students had the opportun-
ity to practise or observe specific team behaviours, and
whether these training opportunities were positively
regarded, and represented skills that students believed
would be of value to carry forward, and for which they
had sufficient familiarity to successfully implement in
practice. One instrument asked students to report the
frequency with which the training cases provided the
opportunity to practise or observe key communication
behaviours. Examples included whether team members
‘… were consulted for their experience’ or ‘… asked for
assistance’. This scale consisted of 15 items with
response options ranging on a 5-point scale from
‘Never’, to ‘Frequently’. A second instrument asked
respondents to rate their understanding of key concepts
both before and after training (eg, ‘BEFORE participat-
ing in training I had a good understanding of the benefits
and application of Situation, Background, Assessment,
Recommendation (SBAR)’ and ‘AFTER completing the
training I have a BETTER understanding of the benefits
and application of SBAR’). This instrument consisted of
10 item-pairs on a five-point scale from ‘Strongly
Disagree’ to ‘Strongly Agree’. Copies of each of the
instruments are available at the following website:
(http://www.collaborate.uw.edu/educators-toolkit/tools-
for-evaluation.html-0). The presurveys and postsurveys
were completed online and generally took between 10
and 15 min to complete. Pretraining surveys were open
to students for 2 weeks prior to training until 2 days
prior to the training. Post-training online surveys were
completed either on the day the subject completed
training, or approximately 2 weeks post-training. For
logistical reasons, we were unable to have students com-
plete multiple postassessments. Students were randomly
assigned to the group that completed the survey on the
day of the training, or to the group that completed the
survey 2 weeks post-training. This allowed us to assess
degradation of training effects over time. All procedures
were approved by the University of Washington
Institutional Review Board.
Statistical analyses
Statistical analyses and instruments were selected to
align with the training goals. Within-group differences
(pre vs post) were analysed using paired t tests. Analysis
of variance (ANOVA) was used to explore differences
across interprofessional student groups (eg, medical).
Instrument internal consistency was assessed using
Cronbach’s α. All tests applied a p=0.05 level of signifi-
cance. When multiple tests were performed simultan-
eously, the critical values were adjusted using the
Bonferroni criterion to reduce risk of Type I error.
RESULTS
Demographics
A total of 306 fourth-year medical, third-year nursing,
second-year pharmacy and second-year PA students

4 Brock D, et al. Quality and Safety in Health Care 2013;0:1–10. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2012-000952

 Innovations in education

Table 2 Number and percent of students completing preassessment and postassessments

Completed Completed Completed preassessment Completed
Total n (%) preassessment postassessment and postassessment neither
Medicine 174 (56.9) 89 (51.1) 122 (70.1) 73 (42.2) 36 (20.7)
Nursing 88 (28.8) 58 (65.9) 62 (70.5) 46 (52.3) 14 (15.9)
Pharmacy 32 (10.5) 27 (84.4) 27 (84.4.) 23 (71.9) 1 (3.1)
Physician assistant 12 (3.9) 11 (91.7) 8 (66.7) 7 (58.3) 0 (0.0)
Total 306 (100.0) 185 (60.5) 219 (71.6) 149 (48.7) 51 (16.7)

completed the training. Of the total, 255 (83.3%) stu-
dents completed the preassessment and/or the postas-
sessment, of which 149 (48.7%) students completed
both the preassessment and postassessments (comple-
ters). Table 2 provides a breakdown of the student
completers by professional programme. There was no
significant difference, by profession, for completer
classification (χ²=5.33, p=ns). Completers did not
differ significantly from non-respondents or students
completing only one assessment component on profes-
sion, sex, age or previous healthcare experience (each
p=ns). Therefore, the analyses reported here reflect
those students who completed both preassessment and
postassessments, allowing for a preassessment vs post-
assessment comparison on study variables. Table 3 pro-
vides a breakdown of the completers by sex, age and
healthcare, and healthcare team experience.
Postassessments were completed in one of two
groups: day of the training, or 2 weeks post-training.
Change scores for aggregate measures between preas-
sessment and postassessment were compared using
one-way ANOVA. After adjusting for the possibility of
an inflated Type I error rate, no significant differences
were discovered as a function of the date of the postad-
ministration survey (each p>0.10). The staggered post-
measures were, therefore, aggregated to a single set of
postmeasures. Only seven PA students completed both
the preassessment and the postassessment. This number
was not sufficient to treat as a separate subgroup, and
the PA students were excluded from group analyses.
First training goal
Our first training goal focused on positive attitudinal
shifts (including motivation and self-efficacy). The
AMUSE was used to assess changes in student atti-
tudes, motivation, utility and self-efficacy following
training. Each subscale (α=0.90–0.79) and the aggre-
gate total (α=0.90) achieved acceptable levels of
internal consistency. Change scores were used to
assess impact. Inspection of table 4 indicates that sig-
nificant positive changes occurred for the AMUSE
total score ( p<0.001), and each of the four AMUSE
subscales ( p<0.001 to p=0.005). This provides evi-
dence that training increased students’ positive atti-
tudes towards working in teams, that students were
more motivated to work in teams, saw greater value
(utility) to this type of training and practice and felt
able to implement the skills they had learned (self-
efficacy). The largest effect was seen for the AMUSE
utility score (mean=0.41, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.50). The
smallest effect was seen for the AMUSE self-efficacy
score (mean=0.12, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.21). Individual
students tended to show improvement in their atti-
tudes, motivation, beliefs about utility and self-
efficacy; this effect was relatively uniform across the
professional programme and focal area.
Table 4 also provides the prescores and postscores
for the TeamSTEPPS Attitude Questionnaire (TAQ).
One TAQ subscale (Mutual Support) exhibited mar-
ginal internal consistency (α=0.62). The other TAQ
subscales (α=0.85–0.94) and the TAQ aggregate
(α=0.93) achieved acceptable internal consistency.
Significant positive increases were noted for TAQ
Total Score ( p<0.001), TAQ Situation Monitoring
( p<0.001), TAQ Team Structure ( p=0.002), TAQ
Communication ( p=0.002) and TAQ Mutual Support
( p=0.003). There was no significant change in the
TAQ Leadership score ( p=0.062). The largest effect
was seen for the TAQ Situation Monitoring
(mean=0.19, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.38), and the smallest
significant effect was for Communication
(mean=0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.21). Similar to the
AMUSE results, individual students showed improve-
ments in most of the TAQ subscales, an effect which
was not differentially related to the student’s profes-
sional programme or the focal area of the training.

Table 3 Demographics for students completing both the preassessment and postassessments (n=149)
Medicine (n=73) Nursing (n=46) Pharmacy (n=23) PA (n=7) Total (n=149)
Sex (n (%) female) 39 (53.4) 41 (89.1) 15 (65.2) 5 (71.4) 100 (67.1)
Age (mean, SD) 28.7, 3.3 26.7, 6.5 26.6, 3.7 34.6, 5.9 28.0, 4.9
Healthcare experience (n (%) yes) 23 (31.5) 23 (50.0) 5 (21.7) 7 (100.0) 58 (38.9)
Team healthcare experience (n (%) most or Some) 21 (91.3) 16 (70.0) 1 (20.0) 6 (85.6) 44 (75.8)
PA, Physician assistant.

Brock D, et al. Quality and Safety in Health Care 2013;0:1–10. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2012-000952 5

 Innovations in education

Table 4 Pre-Attitudes and post-Attitudes, Motivation, Utility and Self-Efficacy (AMUSE) and the TeamSTEPPS Teamwork Attitudes
Questionnaire (TAQ) Totals and subscores
Pre-Attitudes Post-Attitudes Paired Effect

Instruments Mean (95% CI) Mean (95% CI) t test Size d

AMUSE Total (n=149) 3.92 (3.85 to 3.98) 4.21 (4.13 to 4.29) 0.000 0.70
Attitudes 4.30 (4.20 to 4.40) 4.56 (4.46 to 4.65) 0.000 0.65
Motivation 3.64 (3.55 to 3.73) 4.01 (3.90 to 4.11) 0.000 0.40
Utility 4.05 (3.96 to 415) 4.46 (4.36 to 4.56) 0.000 0.70
Self efficacy 3.68 (3.60 to 3.76) 3.80 (3.71 to 3.89) 0.005 0.23
TeamSTEPPS Total (n=149) 4.02 (3.97 to 4.07) 4.16 (4.09 to 4.23) 0.000 0.32
Team structure 4.34 (4.27 to 4.41) 4.48 (4.40 to 4.57) 0.002 0.26
Leadership 4.55 (4.48 to 4.62) 4.63 (4.55 to 4.72) 0.062 *
Situation monitoring 4.33 (4.25 to 4.40) 4.52 (4.43 to 4.61) 0.000 0.35
Mutual support 3.01 (2.94 to 3.07) 3.14 (3.06 to 3.23) 0.003 0.24
Communication 3.90 (3.84 to 3.96) 4.03 (3.95 to 4.10) 0.002 0.26
*Effect size not computed for non-significant values.
All questions were scored on a scale from 1=‘Strongly Disagree’, to 5=‘Strongly Agree’.
TEAMstepps, Team Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance and Patient Safety.

One-way ANOVAs were conducted on the change differences between AMUSE subscales emerged only
scores of the TAQ and AMUSE aggregate total scores for motivation ( p=0.010, η2=0.06) and self-efficacy
and subscales to explore whether differences occurred ( p=0.005, η2=0.07). For motivation, this reflected
across student groups from different professions. lower postscores for pharmacy students (mean=3.53,
When conducting analysis by programme of study SD=0.90) than for medical (mean=4.11, SD=0.46)
(medical, nursing, pharmacy), robust statistical or nursing students (mean=4.13, SD=0.59). Medical
students (mean=3.89, SD=0.55) reported higher
Table 5 Post-training assessment of the frequency of seeing or postlevels of self-efficacy than did nursing
participating in specific behaviours (mean=3.67, SD=0.43) or pharmacy students
(mean=3.56, SD=0.73).
Item Mean (95% CI)
Second training goal
Leaders assigned tasks to team members to help 4.16 (4.05 to 4.27)
team functioning Our second training goal sought to provide students
Leaders shared information with team members 4.14 (4.04 to 4.24) the opportunity to observe and practise team commu-
Team member communication skills decreased the 4.01 (3.90 to 4.12) nication skills. In the postassessment, interprofessional
risk of errors students were asked to rate the frequency with which
Team members demonstrated a shared mental 3.92 (3.82 to 4.02) they saw or participated in a series of behaviours.
model These behaviours are provided in table 5. Since these
Team members were consulted for their experience 3.87 (3.74 to 4.00) questions could only be delivered post-training, we
Team members scanned the environment for 3.86 (3.75 to 3.97) have reported results for all students who completed
important situational cues the postassessment (n=21 971.6%). Respondents
Leaders discussed the patient’s plan with their team 3.85 (3.73 to 3.97) were significantly more likely (adjusted for Type I
Team members exchanged information with the 3.85 (3.74 to 3.96) error) to report having had the experience of team
patients and their families leaders assigning tasks and sharing information with
Leaders created opportunities for team members to 3.78 (3.66 to 3.90) team members, and to report examples of communi-
share information
cation skills that served to reduce error. Observations
Team members asked for assistance 3.73 (3.60 to 3.86)
of team members effectively asserting patient safety
Team members anticipated needs 3.71 (3.60 to 3.82)
concerns, offering each other help, or utilising
Team members asked questions about information 3.69 (3.57 to 3.81)
provided by other team members
patients and/or family members as critical members of
the care team were less likely to be reported.
Team members asserted patient safety concerns 3.64 (3.52 to 3.76)
until heard Third training goal
Team members offered help to other team members 3.53 (3.38 to 3.68) Our third training goal focused on increasing student
Patients and family members utilised as critical 3.51 (3.39 to 3.63) understanding of team skills. As part of the postassess-
components of the care team
ment, students reported levels of agreement that training
Respondents (n=194–217 completed responses per item) reported the
frequency that the training cases allowed them to practise or observe
had increased understanding of key learning objectives
instances of specific communications skills. (table 6). The largest changes occurred in beliefs around
Response options ranged from 1=‘Never’, to 5=‘Frequently’. the benefits of implementing TeamSTEPPS (mean=1.48,

6 Brock D, et al. Quality and Safety in Health Care 2013;0:1–10. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2012-000952

 Innovations in education

Table 6 Self-reported change between preunderstanding and postunderstanding of key TeamSTEPPS learning objectives
Learning objective Before After Change with 95% CI Paired t test Effect size
TeamSTEPPS 2.82 4.29 1.48 (1.33 to 1.63) <0.001 1.37
Advocate 3.06 4.33 1.27 (1.13 to 1.41) <0.001 1.22
Communication 3.42 4.50 1.08 (0.94 to 1.22) <0.001 1.07
Briefs and huddles 3.40 4.46 1.06 (0.93 to 1.19) <0.001 1.10
SBAR 3.45 4.46 1.03 (0.88 to 1.18) <0.001 0.92
Shared mental model 3.44 4.45 1.02 (0.88 to 1.16) <0.001 0.97
IPE benefits 3.55 4.54 0.99 (0.85 to 1.13) <0.001 0.98
Importance of sharing information 3.49 4.42 0.93 (0.81 to 1.05) <0.001 1.03
Patient safety 3.95 4.55 0.60 (0.49 to 0.71) <0.001 0.71
Offer help 4.01 4.40 0.39 (0.29 to 0.49) <0.001 0.51
Respondents (n=201–214) reported whether they had a ‘good understanding’ before training and whether they had a ‘better understanding’ after training.
Items were scored from 1=‘Strongly Disagree’, to 5=‘Strongly Agree’.
TeamSTEPPS, Team Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance and Patient Safety.

95% CI 1.33 to 1.63) and ability to advocate within-
teams (mean=1.27, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.41). The least
change occurred in student understanding of the
association between interprofessional teams and patient
safety (mean=0.60, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.71), and of the
importance of offering assistance and seeking help
(mean=0.39, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.50).
Evaluation data
At the conclusion of training, participants (n=292)
completed a brief evaluation of the experience. Overall,
students within each of the three focal areas reported
the trainings to be valuable (1=Not at all valuable, to
5=Highly valuable). They especially reported value in
the TeamSTEPPS introduction (mean=4.57, SD=0.70),
and the final debrief following the completion of the
three cases (mean=4.29, SD=0.95).
Participants were also asked their level of agreement
(1=Strongly Disagree, to 5=Strongly Agree) with spe-
cific aspects of the training. Participants were gener-
ally in agreement that materials were at an
appropriate level (mean=4.42, SD=0.78), provided
valuable team skills training (mean=4.66, SD=0.59),
provided a realistic experience of the challenges faced
when working in interprofessional teams
(mean=4.44, SD=0.78), and provided a valuable
opportunity to communicate with students from other
professions (mean=4.71, SD=0.56).
Students were also asked to describe their most
valuable learning experience in the training. Three
consistent themes emerged: (1) value in the opportun-
ity to work with students from different professional
schools, (2) the value of learning and practising spe-
cific communication skills in a supportive environ-
ment and (3) value of practising skills within an
interprofessional team.
DISCUSSION
The Interprofessional Team Capstone was successful at
several levels. Initial successes are reflected in the
considerable logistic challenges we addressed. These
included: recruiting and scheduling students from four
separate health professions; securing support from the
school deans and programme directors; recruiting suffi-
cient volunteer faculty to staff the training sessions for
four full days; training the faculty using a
‘train-the-trainer’ approach; securing the physical space
necessary to conduct the simulation training. Other suc-
cesses are reflected in the positive self-report from stu-
dents and changes in their attitudes, beliefs and
confidence resulting from the training. This may result,
in part, from taking a multimodal approach to case
development that combined manikin simulators with a
standardised patient or standardised family member.
This allowed us to capitalise on the benefits of both
modes to provide a rich student learning experience.
The cases were considered realistic and engaging, the
communication challenges were important, and the
opportunity to work within interprofessional teams was
described as valuable. Students enjoyed the activities
and reported they had benefited professionally from
participation. This benefit was reflected in improved
attitudes towards interprofessional training, an increased
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to participate in future
trainings, a perceived value for the utility of
TeamSTEPPS communication training, and an increased
sense of perceived self-efficacy in translating the skills
learned in training into practice. This was consistent
whether students were surveyed on the day of the train-
ing or 2 weeks following training.
Our cases, and our case development processes, par-
allel the recommendations of World Health
Organization (WHO)33 for the creation of multiprofes-
sional patient safety education. We sought to develop
cases that were interesting, relevant, realistic and
readily applicable to practice. Most importantly, stu-
dents were provided the opportunity to practise skills
learnt in multiple realistic simulations, and encouraged
to engage and receive feedback following each activity.
Students learnt by doing, not simply by observing.

Brock D, et al. Quality and Safety in Health Care 2013;0:1–10. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2012-000952 7

 Innovations in education
We developed two new instruments for this study
and reported on a use of the previously unpublished
AMUSE instrument. These instruments were designed
to allow students to report experiences from interpro-
fessional team trainings. While observer-based instru-
ments for team training exercises have been reported,
similar self-report instruments have not been widely
discussed. Our instruments may prove of value to
other interprofessional trainings where educators
seek to better understand student attitudes and
perceptions.
One of the most consistent findings was reflected in
students’ written stated reports of the value of
working directly with students from other professions.
While most of the participating students had experi-
ence in clinical settings working with practitioners
from other professional programmes, the majority
had minimal experience working in interprofessional
activities with the people who would be their future
colleagues. Fellow students provide an opportunity
for learning to occur in lower stakes and a less stress-
ful environment than working in interprofessional
healthcare teams caring for real patients.
Limitations
Our study has important limitations to consider. First,
this was a simple pre-post design, without a defined
control group. It is possible that student postresponses
resulted, in part, from other aspects of their ongoing
professional training. This concern is minimised by
the relatively short span of time between the preadmi-
nistrations and postadministrations. However, it is
also possible that students were sensitised by the pre-
assessment to be more alert and attuned to the
assessed elements of the team communication train-
ing. However, few studies meet the rigorous standards
necessary to draw causal relationships between the
various components of training and specific out-
comes,34 35 and the empirical base for similar train-
ings has been questioned.36 Future work with
randomised controlled studies of students is needed
with outcomes that include later professional practice.
We have demonstrated that positive outcomes are
obtainable through a short introduction to the
TeamSTEPPS skillset, and the opportunity to practise
these skills and receive feedback from experienced
facilitators. However, interpretation of the findings is
confounded by unmeasured factors, which include the
effects of an individual’s assigned team members, and
different team facilitators on the team’s learning
experience. In addition, we have relied on self-
assessment instruments that have not been fully vali-
dated. This is partly due to the paucity of validated
measurement assessment tools for use with students.
This is changing, especially with work around self-
efficacy,37 and we are completing additional validation
efforts on the tools we have developed for the current
study.
8 Brock D, et al. Quality and Safety in Health Care 2013;0:1–10. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2012-000952
This study does not directly address student skill
attainment, or the impact of newly learned skills on
practice. In addition, other researchers have ques-
tioned the impact of similar interventions.38 The
former can be understood to some extent through our
ongoing analysis of student performance from the
videos collected during the Capstone exercise. This
will provide some evidence that the skills have been
demonstrated, as well as the quality of the skills per-
formed. Capturing downstream behaviour change,
and the impact of this change, are more difficult.
Demonstrating the effects of training will require lon-
gitudinal studies to capture the impact of attitudinal
changes on behaviour within clinical settings.
Future directions
Simulation training of interprofessional student teams
represents a first step in establishing improved com-
munication skills within practising clinical teams. We
have shown that student teams can have significant
attitudinal shifts and practice, and observe important
team skills. Our work, funded through the Macy
Foundation, has allowed us to build distributable
resources, including interprofessional training cases
and a template model for the creation of new cases.
We encourage the development of multimodal simula-
tions employing manikin simulators and standardised
patients, and standardised family members as a means
to leverage the benefits of both modes while optimis-
ing the student experience. Dissemination and the
application of these materials broadly across health-
care training programmes will demonstrate the
achievement of a principal goal underlying funding.
In addition, at the University of Washington, the train-
ings described in this paper have been integrated into
the ongoing curriculum.
Validation of the cases and interprofessional team
training tools will require close inspection and quanti-
tative assessment of the impact such training will
ultimately have on the quality of healthcare delivered.
We do not report unequivocal evidence for the effect-
iveness of our trainings; we provide a foundation for
team-communication investigators to establish the
next steps to create best-practice training models. Our
team is currently establishing the validity of observa-
tional tools to assess team performance, as well as cri-
teria for the assessment of videotaped team
interactions. The outcomes and successful training
activity reported here, when combined with the obser-
vational work in development, takes an important
step towards meeting the joint commission’s call that
measurement represents the ‘heart of safety,’ and that
improved care first requires the examination of high-
quality measures of outcomes.39
Acknowledgements The authors would like to
acknowledge funding from a Josiah Macy Foundation
Board Grant (B08–05), and all the members of the

University of Washington Macy Team that developed
and implemented the cases, simulations and trainings.
Contributors Each author contributed to the conception
of the study, the study design, writing and critical
review of the manuscript. Each author approved the
final version of the manuscript. Data collection and
analysis was conducted by DB, EAR and CRC.
Funding The authors would like to acknowledge
funding from a Josiah Macy Foundation Board Grant
(B08-05), and all the members of the University of
Washington Macy Team that developed and
implemented the cases, simulations and trainings.
Competing interests None.
Ethics approval University of Washington Internal
Review Board.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned;
externally peer reviewed.
REFERENCES
1 Joint Commission. Sentinal Events. [cited 20 September 2012];
http://www.jointcommission.org/sentinelevents/statistics/.
2 Kohn LT, Corrigan J, Donaldson MS. To err is human: building
a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press, 2000.
3 Rogers SO Jr, Gawande AA, Kwaan M, et al. Analysis of
surgical errors in closed malpractice claims at 4 liability
insurers. Surgery [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t Research
Support, U.S. Gov’t, P.H.S.]. 2006;140:25–33.
4 Leonard M, Graham S, Bonacum D. The human factor: the
critical importance of effective teamwork and communication
in providing safe care. Qual Saf Health Care 2004;13(Suppl 1):
i85–90.
5 Greenberg CC, Regenbogen SE, Studdert DM, et al. Patterns
of communication breakdowns resulting in injury to surgical
patients. J Am Coll Surg [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t
Research Support, U.S. Gov’t, P.H.S.]. 2007;204:533–40.
6 Spath PL, ed. Error reduction in health care: a systems
approach to improving patient safety. San Francisco: AHA
Press, 1999.
7 Kyrkjebo JM, Brattebo G, Smith-Strom H. Improving patient
safety by using interprofessional simulation training in health
professional education. J Interprof Care 2006;20:507–16.
8 Anderson E, Thorpe L, Heney D, et al. Medical students
benefit from learning about patient safety in an
interprofessional team. Med Educ [Comparative Study Research
Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t]. 2009;43:542–52.
9 DeSilets LD. The institute of medicine’s redesigning continuing
education in the health professions. J Contin Educ Nurs
2010;41:340–1.
10 Guimond ME, Sole ML, Salas E. TeamSTEPPS. Am J Nurs
2009;109:66–8.
11 Robertson B, Kaplan B, Atallah H, et al. The use of simulation
and a modified TeamSTEPPS curriculum for medical and
nursing student team training. Simulation in Healthcare: J Soc
Simulation Healthcare 2010;5:332–7.
12 King HB, Battles J, Baker DP, et al. TeamSTEPPS: team
Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance and Patient
Safety. In: Henriksen K, Battles JB, Keyes MA, Grady ML, eds.
Advances in patient safety: new directions and alternative
Brock D, et al. Quality and Safety in Health Care 2013;0:1–10. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2012-000952
Innovations in education
approaches (vol 3: performance and tools). Rockville, MD,
2008.
13 McGreevy J, Otten T, Poggi M, et al. The challenge of
changing roles and improving surgical care now: crew resource
management approach. Am Surg [Review]. 2006;72:1082–7;
discussion 126-48.
14 Gordon S. Crew resource management. Nurs Inq [Editorial].
2006;13:161–2.
15 Powell SM, Hill RK. My copilot is a nurse–using crew resource
management in the OR. Aorn J [Review]. 2006;83:179–80,
83–90, 93–8 passim; quiz 203-6.
16 Sanfey H, McDowell C, Meier AH, et al. Team training for
surgical trainees. Surgeon [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t].
2011;9(Suppl 1):S32–4.
17 Capella J, Smith S, Philp A, et al. Teamwork training improves
the clinical care of trauma patients. J Surg Educ [Comparative
Study]. 2010;67:439–43.
18 Weaver SJ, Rosen MA, DiazGranados D, et al. Does teamwork
improve performance in the operating room? A multilevel
evaluation. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2010;36:133–42.
19 Mayer CM, Cluff L, Lin WT, et al. Evaluating efforts to
optimize TeamSTEPPS implementation in surgical and
pediatric intensive care units. Jt Comm J Qual Patient saf
[Research Support, U.S. Gov’t, P.H.S.]. 2011;37:365–74.
20 Gaba DM. The future vision of simulation in healthcare. Simul
Healthc 2007;2:126–35.
21 Gaba DM. The future vision of simulation in health care. Qual
Saf Health Care 2004;13(Suppl 1):i2–10.
22 Rosen MA, Salas E, Wilson KA, et al. Measuring team
performance in simulation-based training: adopting best
practices for healthcare. Simul Healthc [Research Support, U.S.
Gov’t, Non-P.H.S.].2008;3:33–41.
23 Parsell G, Bligh J. The development of a questionnaire to assess
the readiness of health care students for interprofessional
learning (RIPLS). Med Educ 1999;33:95–100.
24 Bandura A. The anatomy of stages of change. Am J Health
Promot [Editorial]. 1997;12:8–10.
25 Bandura A. Self efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: W.
H. Freeman and Company, 1997.
26 Baker DP, Amodeo AM, Krokos KJ, et al. Assessing teamwork
attitudes in healthcare: development of the TeamSTEPPS
teamwork attitudes questionnaire. Qual Saf Health Care
[Research Support, U.S. Gov’t, Non-P.H.S. Validation Studies].
2010;19:e49.
27 Leucht R, Madsen M, Taugher M, et al. Assessing professional
perceptions: design and validation of an interdisciplinary
education perception scale. J Allied Health 1990;19:181–91.
28 McFadyen AK, Webster VS, Maclaren WM. The test-retest
reliability of a revised version of the Readiness for
Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS). J Interprof Care
2006;20:633–9.
29 Reid R, Bruce D, Allstaff K, et al. Validating the Readiness for
Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS) in the postgraduate
context: are health care professionals ready for IPL? Med Educ
[Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t Validation Studies].
2006;40:415–22.
30 McFadyen AK, Webster V, Strachan K, et al. The readiness for
interprofessional learning scale: a possible more stable
sub-scale model for the original version of RIPLS. J Interprof
Care 2005;19:595–603.
31 Bandura A. Guidelines for constructing self-efficacy scales. In:
Pajares F, Urdan T, eds. Self-efficacy, beliefs of adolescents.
Charlotte: Information Age Publishing, 2006:307–37.
9
 Innovations in education
32 Bandura A. Human agency in social cognitive theory. Am
Psychol [Research Support, U.S. Gov’t, P.H.S.].
1989;44:1175–84.
33 World Health Organization. Patient Safety Curriculum Guide:
Multi-professional Editional. [cited 14 September 2012 ];
Available from: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/
9789241501958_eng.pdf
34 Lapkin S, Levett-Jones T, Gilligan C. A systematic review of the
effectiveness of interprofessional education in health
professional programs. Nurse Educ Today 2011.
35 Reeves S. An overview of continuing interprofessional
education. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2009;29:142–6.
10
View publication stats
36 Eppich W, Howard V, Vozenilek J, et al. Simulation-based team
training in healthcare. Simul Healthc [Research Support, N.I.
H., Extramural Review]. 2011;6(Suppl):S14–19.
37 Mann K, McFetridge-Durdle J, Breau L, et al. Development of
a scale to measure health professions students’ self-efficacy
beliefs in interprofessional learning. J Interprof Care 2011.
38 Rosenfield D, Oandasan I, Reeves S. Perceptions versus reality:
a qualitative study of students’ expectations and experiences of
interprofessional education. Med Educ [Research Support,
Non-U.S. Gov’t]. 2011;45:471–7.
39 Joint Commission. Measurement: the heart of patient safety.
Jt Comm Benchmark 2006;8:4–7.
Brock D, et al. Quality and Safety in Health Care 2013;0:1–10. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2012-000952