Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis
- The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Editors’ Preface
- Organization of This Handbook
- How to Work with This Handbook
- Part I Background and Theory
- Part II Application Areas of Interaction Analysis
- Part III Methodology and Procedures of Interaction Analysis
- Part IV Data Analysis and Data Presentation
- Part V Coding Schemes for Interaction Research
- General Group Process Systems
- Argument, Conflict, and Negotiations
- Coordination and Coherence
- 30 CoCo
- 31 Co-ACT
- 32 SO-DIC-OR
- Cognition and Metacognition
- Personality and Team Behavior
- Roles and Relationships
- Appendix
- Index
- References
31 - Co-ACT
A Framework for Observing Coordination Behavior in Acute Care Teams
from Coordination and Coherence
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 July 2018
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis
- The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Editors’ Preface
- Organization of This Handbook
- How to Work with This Handbook
- Part I Background and Theory
- Part II Application Areas of Interaction Analysis
- Part III Methodology and Procedures of Interaction Analysis
- Part IV Data Analysis and Data Presentation
- Part V Coding Schemes for Interaction Research
- General Group Process Systems
- Argument, Conflict, and Negotiations
- Coordination and Coherence
- 30 CoCo
- 31 Co-ACT
- 32 SO-DIC-OR
- Cognition and Metacognition
- Personality and Team Behavior
- Roles and Relationships
- Appendix
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis , pp. 510 - 517Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Primary Sources
Kolbe, M., Burtscher, M. J., & Manser, T. (2013). Co-ACT: A framework for observing coordination behaviour in acute care teams. BMJ Quality & Safety, 22, 596–605. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Secondary Sources
Cicchetti, D. V., & Feinstein, A. R. (1990). High agreement but low kappa: II. Resolving the paradoxes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 43, 551–558. doi:org/10.1016/0895-4356(90)90159-MCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feinstein, A. R., & Cicchetti, D. V. (1990). High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 43, 543–549. doi:org/10.1016/0895-4356(90)90158-LCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fletcher, G., Flin, R., McGeorge, P., Glavin, R., Maran, N., & Patey, R. (2004). Rating non-technical skills: Developing a behavioral marker system for use in anaesthesia. Cognition, Technology and Work, 165–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gawande, A. A., Zinner, M. J., Studdert, D. M., & Brennan, T. A. (2003). Analysis of errors reported by surgeons at three teaching hospitals. Surgery, 133, 614–621. doi:10:1067/msy.2003.169CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grote, G., Kolbe, M., Zala-Mezö, E., Bienefeld-Seall, N., & Künzle, B. (2010). Adaptive coordination and heedfulness make better cockpit crews. Ergonomics, 52, 211–228. doi:10.1080/00140130903248819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolbe, M., Burtscher, M. J., & Manser, T. (2011). Analyzing communication to understand how healthcare action teams coordinate. Paper presented at the 5th International Workshop on Behavioral Science Applied to Acute Care Teams, Zurich, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Kolbe, M., Burtscher, M. J., Wacker, J., Grande, B., Nohynkova, R., Manser, T., … Grote, G. (2012). Speaking-up is related to better team performance in simulated anesthesia inductions: An observational study. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 115, 1099–1108. doi:10.1213/ANE.0b013e318269cd32CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolbe, M., Grote, G., Waller, M. J., Wacker, J., Grande, B., Burtscher, M., & Spahn, D. (2014). Monitoring and talking to the room: Autochthonous coordination patterns in team interaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 1254–1267. doi:org/10.1037/a0037877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolbe, M., Künzle, B., Zala-Mezö, E., Wacker, J., & Grote, G. (2009). Measuring coordination behaviour in anaesthesia teams during induction of general anaesthetics. In Flin, R. & Mitchell, L. (Eds.), Safer surgery. Analysing behaviour in the operating theatre (pp. 203–221). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observers agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174. doi:10.2307/2529310CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manser, T., Howard, S. K., & Gaba, D. M. (2008). Adaptive coordination in cardiac anaesthesia: A study of situational changes in coordination patterns using a new observation system. Ergonomics, 51, 1153–1178. doi:10.1080/00140130801961919CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mazzocco, K., Petitti, D. B., Fong, K. T., Bonacum, D., Brookey, J., Graham, S., … Thomas, E. J. (2009). Surgical team behaviors and patient outcomes. Am J Surg, 197(5), 678–685.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 373–412. doi:10.1080/19416520.2011.574506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, S. H., Yule, S., Flin, R., & McKinley, A. (2011). Towards a model of surgeons’ leadership in the operating room. BMJ Quality & Safety, 20, 570–579. doi:10.1136/bmjqs.2010.040295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundstrom, E., de Meuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams. Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45, 120–133. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, E. J., Sexton, J. B., & Helmreich, R. L. (2004). Translating teamwork behaviours from aviation to healthcare: Development of behavioural markers for neonatal resuscitation. Qual Saf Health Care, 13(suppl 1), i57–i64. doi:10.1136/qshc.2004.009811CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tschan, F., Semmer, N. K., Vetterli, M., Gurtner, A., Hunziker, S., & Marsch, S. U. (2011). Developing observational categories for group process research based on task and coordination-requirement analysis: Examples from research on medical emergency-driven teams. In Boos, M., Kolbe, M., Kappeler, P., & Ellwart, T. (Eds.), Coordination in human and primate groups (pp. 93–118). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Undre, S., Sevdalis, N., & Vincent, C. (2009). Observing and assessing surgical teams: The Observational Teamwork Assessment for Surgery (OTAS). In Flin, R. & Mitchell, L. (Edsr.), Safer surgery. Analysing behaviour in the operating theatre (pp. 83–101). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Weiss, M., Kolbe, M., Grote, G., Dambach, M., Marty, A., Spahn, D. R., & Grande, B. (2014). Agency and communion predict speaking up in acute care teams. Small Group Research, 45, 290–313. doi:10.1177/1046496414531495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, M., Kolbe, M., Grote, G., Spahn, D. R., & Grande, B. (2017a). We can do it! Inclusive leader language promotes voice behavior in multi-professional teams. The Leadership Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.09.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, M., Kolbe, M., Grote, G., Spahn, D. R., & Grande, B. (2017b). Why didn’t you say something? Using after-event reviews to affect voice behavior and hierarchy beliefs in multi-professional action teams. European Journal of Work and Organization Psychology, 26(1), 66–80. doi:org/10.1080/1359432X.2016.1208652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, A. L., Lasky, R. E., Dannemiller, J. L., Andrei, A. M., & Thomas, E. J. (2010). Teamwork behaviours and errors during neonatal resuscitation. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 19(1), 60–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yule, S., Flin, R., Paterson-Brown, S., & Maran, N. (2006). Non-technical skills for surgeons in the operating room: A review of the literature. Surgery, 139, 140–149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed