We have located links that may give you full text access.
Understanding Conflict Management Styles in Anesthesiology Residents.
Anesthesia and Analgesia 2018 October
BACKGROUND: Successful conflict resolution is vital for effective teamwork and is critical for safe patient care in the operating room. Being able to appreciate the differences in training backgrounds, individual knowledge and opinions, and task interdependency necessitates skilled conflict management styles when addressing various clinical and professional scenarios. The goal of this study was to assess conflict styles in anesthesiology residents via self- and counterpart assessment during participation in simulated conflict scenarios.
METHODS: Twenty-two first-year anesthesiology residents (first postgraduate year) participated in this study, which aimed to assess and summarize conflict management styles by 3 separate metrics. One metric was self-assessment with the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI), summarized as percentile scores (0%-99%) for 5 conflict styles: collaborating, competing, accommodating, avoiding, and compromising. Participants also completed self- and counterpart ratings after interactions in a simulated conflict scenario using the Dutch Test for Conflict Handling (DUTCH), with scores ranging from 5 to 25 points for each of 5 conflict styles: yielding, compromising, forcing, problem solving, and avoiding. Higher TKI and DUTCH scores would indicate a higher preference for a given conflict style. Sign tests were used to compare self- and counterpart ratings on the DUTCH scores, and Spearman correlations were used to assess associations between TKI and DUTCH scores.
RESULTS: On the TKI, the anesthesiology residents had the highest median percentile scores (with first quartile [Q1] and third quartile [Q3]) in compromising (67th, Q1-Q3 = 27-87) and accommodating (69th, Q1-Q3 = 30-94) styles, and the lowest scores for competing (32nd, Q1-Q3 = 10-57). After each conflict scenario, residents and their counterparts on the DUTCH reported higher median scores for compromising (self: 16, Q1-Q3 = 14-16; counterpart: 16, Q1-Q3 = 15-16) and problem solving (self: 17, Q1-Q3 = 16-18; counterpart: 16, Q1-Q3 = 16-17), and lower scores for forcing (self: 13, Q1-Q3 = 10-15; counterpart: 13, Q1-Q3 = 13-15) and avoiding (self: 14, Q1-Q3 = 10-16; counterpart: 14.5, Q1-Q3 = 11-16). There were no significant differences (P > .05) between self- and counterpart ratings on the DUTCH. Overall, the correlations between TKI and DUTCH scores were not statistically significant (P > .05).
CONCLUSIONS: Findings from our study demonstrate that our cohort of first postgraduate year anesthesiology residents predominantly take a more cooperative and problem-solving approach to handling conflict. By understanding one's dominant conflict management style through this type of analysis and appreciating the value of other styles, one may become better equipped to manage different conflicts as needed depending on the situations.
METHODS: Twenty-two first-year anesthesiology residents (first postgraduate year) participated in this study, which aimed to assess and summarize conflict management styles by 3 separate metrics. One metric was self-assessment with the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI), summarized as percentile scores (0%-99%) for 5 conflict styles: collaborating, competing, accommodating, avoiding, and compromising. Participants also completed self- and counterpart ratings after interactions in a simulated conflict scenario using the Dutch Test for Conflict Handling (DUTCH), with scores ranging from 5 to 25 points for each of 5 conflict styles: yielding, compromising, forcing, problem solving, and avoiding. Higher TKI and DUTCH scores would indicate a higher preference for a given conflict style. Sign tests were used to compare self- and counterpart ratings on the DUTCH scores, and Spearman correlations were used to assess associations between TKI and DUTCH scores.
RESULTS: On the TKI, the anesthesiology residents had the highest median percentile scores (with first quartile [Q1] and third quartile [Q3]) in compromising (67th, Q1-Q3 = 27-87) and accommodating (69th, Q1-Q3 = 30-94) styles, and the lowest scores for competing (32nd, Q1-Q3 = 10-57). After each conflict scenario, residents and their counterparts on the DUTCH reported higher median scores for compromising (self: 16, Q1-Q3 = 14-16; counterpart: 16, Q1-Q3 = 15-16) and problem solving (self: 17, Q1-Q3 = 16-18; counterpart: 16, Q1-Q3 = 16-17), and lower scores for forcing (self: 13, Q1-Q3 = 10-15; counterpart: 13, Q1-Q3 = 13-15) and avoiding (self: 14, Q1-Q3 = 10-16; counterpart: 14.5, Q1-Q3 = 11-16). There were no significant differences (P > .05) between self- and counterpart ratings on the DUTCH. Overall, the correlations between TKI and DUTCH scores were not statistically significant (P > .05).
CONCLUSIONS: Findings from our study demonstrate that our cohort of first postgraduate year anesthesiology residents predominantly take a more cooperative and problem-solving approach to handling conflict. By understanding one's dominant conflict management style through this type of analysis and appreciating the value of other styles, one may become better equipped to manage different conflicts as needed depending on the situations.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Executive Summary: State-of-the-Art Review: Unintended Consequences: Risk of Opportunistic Infections Associated with Long-term Glucocorticoid Therapies in Adults.Clinical Infectious Diseases 2024 April 11
Autoimmune Hemolytic Anemias: Classifications, Pathophysiology, Diagnoses and Management.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 13
Clinical practice guidelines on the management of status epilepticus in adults: A systematic review.Epilepsia 2024 April 13
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app