↓ Skip to main content

Six habits to enhance MET performance under stress: A discussion paper reviewing team mechanisms for improved patient outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Australian critical care : official journal of the Confederation of Australian Critical Care Nurses., August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Six habits to enhance MET performance under stress: A discussion paper reviewing team mechanisms for improved patient outcomes
Published in
Australian critical care : official journal of the Confederation of Australian Critical Care Nurses., August 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.aucc.2015.07.006
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erich C. Fein, Benjamin Mackie, Lily Chernyak-Hai, C. Richard V. O’Quinn, Ezaz Ahmed

Abstract

Effective team decision making has the potential to improve the quality of health care outcomes. Medical Emergency Teams (METs), a specific type of team led by either critical care nurses or physicians, must respond to and improve the outcomes of deteriorating patients. METs routinely make decisions under conditions of uncertainty and suboptimal care outcomes still occur. In response, the development and use of Shared Mental Models (SMMs), which have been shown to promote higher team performance under stress, may enhance patient outcomes. This discussion paper specifically focuses on the development and use of SMMs in the context of METs. Within this process, the psychological mechanisms promoting enhanced team performance are examined and the utility of this model is discussed through the narrative of six habits applied to MET interactions. A two stage, reciprocal model of both nonanalytic decision making within the acute care environment and analytic decision making during reflective action learning was developed. These habits are explored within the context of a MET, illustrating how applying SMMs and action learning processes may enhance team-based problem solving under stress. Based on this model, we make recommendations to enhance MET decision making under stress. It is suggested that the corresponding habits embedded within this model could be imparted to MET members and tested by health care researchers to assess the efficacy of this integrated decision making approach in respect to enhanced team performance and patient outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 18%
Student > Master 10 15%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Other 4 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 5%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 23 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 14 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 18%
Psychology 5 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 25 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 June 2016.
All research outputs
#3,194,029
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Australian critical care : official journal of the Confederation of Australian Critical Care Nurses.
#190
of 809 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,129
of 279,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Australian critical care : official journal of the Confederation of Australian Critical Care Nurses.
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 809 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,604 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them