Lorelei Lingard

Bio: Lorelei Lingard is an academic researcher from University of Western Ontario. The author has contributed to research in topics: Grounded theory & Health care. The author has an hindex of 61, co-authored 287 publications receiving 14260 citations. Previous affiliations of Lorelei Lingard include University of Toronto & University Health Network.

Communication failures in the operating room: an observational classification of recurrent types and effects

Abstract: Background: Ineffective team communication is frequently at the root of medical error. The objective of this study was to describe the characteristics of communication failures in the operating room (OR) and to classify their effects. This study was part of a larger project to develop a team checklist to improve communication in the OR. Methods: Trained observers recorded 90 hours of observation during 48 surgical procedures. Ninety four team members participated from anesthesia (16 staff, 6 fellows, 3 residents), surgery (14 staff, 8 fellows, 13 residents, 3 clerks), and nursing (31 staff). Field notes recording procedurally relevant communication events were analysed using a framework which considered the content, audience, purpose, and occasion of a communication exchange. A communication failure was defined as an event that was flawed in one or more of these dimensions. Results: 421 communication events were noted, of which 129 were categorized as communication failures. Failure types included “occasion” (45.7% of instances) where timing was poor; “content” (35.7%) where information was missing or inaccurate, “purpose” (24.0%) where issues were not resolved, and “audience” (20.9%) where key individuals were excluded. 36.4% of failures resulted in visible effects on system processes including inefficiency, team tension, resource waste, workaround, delay, patient inconvenience and procedural error. Conclusion: Communication failures in the OR exhibited a common set of problems. They occurred in approximately 30% of team exchanges and a third of these resulted in effects which jeopardized patient safety by increasing cognitive load, interrupting routine, and increasing tension in the OR.

Critically appraising qualitative research

Abstract: Six key questions will help readers to assess qualitative research #### Summary points Over the past decade, readers of medical journals have gained skills in critically appraising studies to determine whether the results can be trusted and applied to their own practice settings. Criteria have been designed to assess studies that use quantitative methods, and these are now in common use. In this article we offer guidance for readers on how to assess a study that uses qualitative research methods by providing six key questions to ask when reading qualitative research (box 1). However, the thorough assessment of qualitative research is an interpretive act and requires informed reflective thought rather than the simple application of a scoring system. #### Box 1 Key questions to ask when reading qualitative research studies One of the critical decisions in a qualitative study is whom or what to include in the sample—whom to interview, whom to observe, what texts to analyse. An understanding that qualitative research is based in experience and in the construction of meaning, combined with the specific research question, should guide the sampling process. For example, a study of the experience of survivors of domestic violence that examined their reasons for not seeking help from healthcare providers might focus on interviewing a …

Grounded theory, mixed methods, and action research.

Abstract: These commonly used methods are appropriate for particular research questions and contexts Qualitative research includes a variety of methodological approaches with different disciplinary origins and tools. This article discusses three commonly used approaches: grounded theory, mixed methods, and action research. It provides background for those who will encounter these methodologies in their reading rather than instructions for carrying out such research. We describe the appropriate uses, key characteristics, and features of rigour of each approach. Grounded theory was developed by Glaser and Strauss.[1] Its main thrust is to generate theories regarding social phenomena: that is, to develop higher level understanding that is “grounded” in, or derived from, a systematic analysis of data. Grounded theory is appropriate when the study of social interactions or experiences aims to explain a process, not to test or verify an existing theory. Researchers approach the question with disciplinary interests, background assumptions (sometimes called “sensitising concepts”[2]) and an acquaintance with the literature in the domain, but they neither develop nor test hypotheses. Rather, the theory emerges through a close and careful analysis of the data. Key features of grounded theory are its iterative study design, theoretical (purposive) sampling, and system of analysis.[3] An iterative study design entails cycles of simultaneous data collection and analysis, where analysis informs the next cycle of data collection. In a study of the experience of caring for a dying family member, for instance, preliminary analysis of interviews with family care providers may suggesta theme of “care burdens,” and this theme could be refined by interviewing participants who are at variouspoints in the care trajectory, who might offer different perspectives. Analysis of the subsequent phase of data collection will lead to further adaptations of the data collection process to refine and complicate the emerging theory of care burdens. In keeping with this …

Evaluation of a preoperative checklist and team briefing among surgeons, nurses, and anesthesiologists to reduce failures in communication

Abstract: Objective To assess whether structured team briefings improve operating room communication. Design, Setting, and Participants This 13-month prospective study used a preintervention/postintervention design. All staff and trainees in the division of general surgery at a Canadian academic tertiary care hospital were invited to participate. Participants included 11 general surgeons, 24 surgical trainees, 41 operating room nurses, 28 anesthesiologists, and 24 anesthesia trainees. Intervention Surgeons, nurses, and anesthesiologists gathered before 302 patient procedures for a short team briefing structured by a checklist. Main Outcome Measure The primary outcome measure was the number of communication failures (late, inaccurate, unresolved, or exclusive communication) per procedure. Communication failures and their consequences were documented by 1 of 4 trained observers using a validated observational scale. Secondary outcomes were the number of checklist briefings that demonstrated “utility” (an effect on the knowledge or actions of the team) and participants' perceptions of the briefing experience. Results One hundred seventy-two procedures were observed (86 preintervention, 86 postintervention). The mean (SD) number of communication failures per procedure declined from 3.95 (3.20) before the intervention to 1.31 (1.53) after the intervention ( P Conclusions Interprofessional checklist briefings reduced the number of communication failures and promoted proactive and collaborative team communication.

Making Sense of Grounded Theory in Medical Education

Abstract: BACKGROUND Grounded theory is a research methodology designed to develop, through collection and analysis of data that is primarily (but not exclusively) qualitative, a well-integrated set of concepts that provide a theoretical explanation of a social phenomenon. OBJECTIVE This paper aims to provide an introduction to key features of grounded theory methodology within the context of medical education research. OVERVIEW In this paper we include a discussion of the origins of grounded theory, a description of key methodological processes, a comment on pitfalls encountered commonly in the application of grounded theory research, and a summary of the strengths of grounded theory methodology with illustrations from the medical education domain. DISCUSSION The significant strengths of grounded theory that have resulted in its enduring prominence in qualitative research include its clearly articulated analytical process and its emphasis on the generation of pragmatic theory that is grounded in the data of experience. When applied properly and thoughtfully, grounded theory can address research questions of significant relevance to the domain of medical education.

经验与教育 = Experience and education

Abstract: Experience and Educationis the best concise statement on education ever published by John Dewey, the man acknowledged to be the pre-eminent educational theorist of the twentieth century. Written more than two decades after Democracy and Education(Dewey's most comprehensive statement of his position in educational philosophy), this book demonstrates how Dewey reformulated his ideas as a result of his intervening experience with the progressive schools and in the light of the criticisms his theories had received. Analysing both "traditional" and "progressive" education, Dr. Dewey here insists that neither the old nor the new education is adequate and that each is miseducative because neither of them applies the principles of a carefully developed philosophy of experience. Many pages of this volume illustrate Dr. Dewey's ideas for a philosophy of experience and its relation to education. He particularly urges that all teachers and educators looking for a new movement in education should think in terms of the deeped and larger issues of education rather than in terms of some divisive "ism" about education, even such an "ism" as "progressivism." His philosophy, here expressed in its most essential, most readable form, predicates an American educational system that respects all sources of experience, on that offers a true learning situation that is both historical and social, both orderly and dynamic.

A Surgical Safety Checklist to Reduce Morbidity and Mortality in a Global Population

Abstract: The rate of death was 1.5% before the checklist was introduced and declined to 0.8% afterward (P = 0.003). Inpatient complications occurred in 11.0% of patients at baseline and in 7.0% after introduction of the checklist (P<0.001). Conclusions Implementation of the checklist was associated with concomitant reductions in the rates of death and complications among patients at least 16 years of age who were undergoing noncardiac surgery in a diverse group of hospitals.