Anne van Dalen

3 Implementing structured team debriefing using a Black Box in the operating room I 93 Factor analysis of the satisfaction questionnaire The twenty-three questions, answered on a 10-point Likert scale, were evaluated in the factor analysis. The mean scores of each question are presented in Table 2. Mean scores of the questions demonstrated that the team members considered structured team debriefing to be important, useful, and educational. The team members had a mean score of 8.2 (SD 1.1, 10-point Likert scale) regarding satisfaction with the use of the performance report (including video clip) as instrument for a structured operating team debriefing. Question 4 had a very low inter-correlation with question 14b and 20 (< 0.2) hence had to be excluded from the analysis (see Online Appendix). An increase in Cronbach’s alpha to 0.851 was achieved by eliminating question 19b (factor 2). After exclusion of question 4 and 19b, a high KMO value of 0.937 and a significant Bartlett’s test (p value < 0.0001) confirmed that the questionnaire sample was indeed of adequate size for the analysis. 31 Resulting from the factor analysis, some questions clustered on three separate factors. These factors met the Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and in combination these 3 factors explained 64.9% of the variance (see Online Appendix). Factor 1 represents the team member’s attitude towards the “value of team debriefing with the OR Black Box® performance report”, i.e. whether it was useful and educational. Factor 2 represents the team member’s satisfaction with the use of the OR Black Box® performance report as instrument for a structured team debriefing. Factor 3 represents team member’s attitude towards the “benefits of team debriefing” with the OR Black Box®, i.e. the ability of the debriefings to improve the team’s communication, situational awareness and teamwork skills, and patient safety. Table 2 shows the factor loadings, per question (pattern matrix is attached in the appendix). The factor loadings demonstrate which questions clustered to factor 1, 2 or 3, respectively, and how much value they added to their factor. Figures 3, 4 and 5 show the overall mean scores, per role in the OR, of the questions included in factor 1, 2 or 3, respectively.