ArticleCJEM2026
Team decision-making in high-stakes time-pressured environments: what helps and what hinders?
Article in CJEM, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTeam decision-making is central to effective practice in high-acuity healthcare environments, yet most decision-making research in medicine remains focused on individuals rather than teams. This narrative review synthesizes evidence across various fields, including aviation, military, crisis response, and team sport, to identify key factors that influence team decision-making in time-bound, high-stakes settings, and to examine how these insights may inform practice in acute care and resuscitation medicine.
methodsA systematic search of MEDLINE and Scopus databases following previously identified best practices for narrative review identified 595 unique records; after review by the first and second authors, 25 studies met inclusion criteria and focused explicitly on team-level decisions made under conditions of time pressure and high stakes. Included studies spanned healthcare, emergency response, crisis management, aviation, sport, business, and military contexts. These studies were then analyzed by the first author and themes were identified.
resultsContent analysis revealed five factors shaping team decision-making: role clarity, hierarchy, information sharing, team cognition, and team training. Across domains, clear and mutually understood roles have been shown to facilitate coordination, whereas role ambiguity resulted in conflict, redundancy, or unsafe task prioritization. Flexible, psychologically safe hierarchies, rather than rigid structures, enabled inclusive communication and reduced deference-based errors. Effective information sharing required both sufficiency and restraint, emphasizing relevance, timeliness, and shared situational awareness. Team cognition, including the development of shared mental models, was foundational for synchronizing actions under dynamic conditions. Finally, team training approaches that emphasize adaptability, cross-role understanding, pre-briefing, and debriefing cultivated resilience and improved decision accuracy under pressure.
conclusionThese findings suggest opportunities to strengthen decision-making in acute care by prioritizing early role clarification, flattening communication pathways, and designing training that targets soft resilience, shared cognition, and adaptive communication.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42828665What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.