Effect of mental rehearsal on team performance and non-technical skills in surgical teams: systematic review

Abstract

Abstract Background Simulation-based training in medical education has become a common method to develop both technical and non-technical skills in teams. Mental rehearsal (MR) is the cognitive act of simulating a task in our heads to pre-experience tasks imaginatively. It has been used widely to improve individual and collective performance in fields outside healthcare, and offers potential for more efficient training in time-pressured surgical and medical team contexts. This study aimed to review the available literature to determine the impact of MR on team performance and non-technical skills in healthcare. Methods MEDLINE, Embase, British Educational Index, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycInfo and Cochrane databases were searched for the period 1994–2018. The primary outcome measure was improvement in team performance and non-technical skills. Study quality of RCTs was assessed using the Medical Education Research Quality Instrument. The reported impacts of MR in all included studies were mapped on to the Kirkpatrick framework for evaluation of educational interventions. Results Eight studies with 268 participants were identified that met the inclusion criteria, of which there were six randomized trials, one prospective pragmatic trial and one qualitative study. Three studies found MR to be effective in improving team non-technical skills. MR practices were varied and often poorly defined. MR benefited team non-technical skills when it was specifically designed to do so, but was not an automatic consequence of technical MR alone. The majority of studies demonstrated benefits of MR for technical performance, but only three showed positive impacts on teamwork. Overall the studies were of low quality and lacked sufficient discriminatory focus to examine impacts on teamwork dynamics. Conclusion MR can improve technical performance, but the benefits on non-technical skills are less clear. Future research should look at longitudinal mixed-method evaluation designs and focus on real clinical teams.