StressORBLACKBOXNCT07396675
Operating Room Black Box Supported Debriefings and Their Effect on Healthcare Professionals Effectiveness and Psychological Safety.
A study testing Debriefing in people with Stress and Resilience, run by ORNND - Operating Room Nurse Network Denmark at 3 sites in 3 countries.
Trial summary
This study is enrolled in the European KEEPCARING Project. KEEPCARING aims to (re-)build wellbeing and resilience of healthcare workforce in EU hospitals by co-creating a multi-faceted non-digital, digital, and AI-supported solution package to prevent burnout among (aspirant) healthcare professionals on the… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Stress, Resilience, Psychological Safety
- What is being tested?
- Debriefing
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 135 participants
- Where
- 3 sitesin 3 countries
- Study dates
- 1 Mar 2026to 1 Oct 2027
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Participants work in an OR-team at RIGS, AUMC or UKE.
- Participants must have given informed written consent to participate in the study.
- Participants must be in the OR for the majority of the procedure or/and have a central role in the teamwork.
- At RIGS and AUMC participants for the ORBB debriefings must also be part of teams conducting surgeries in the OR where ORBB is installed (not all ORs have ORBB).
- Participants can either be surgeons, anesthesiologist, anesthesia nurses, residents, OR-nurses, perfusionists, interns, nurse students or other OR-staff.
Who cannot join
- Visitors, guests, and other staff only watching the surgery, are excluded from participation.
- Individuals who are unable or unwilling to provide written informed consent.
Trial locations and contacts
3 sites in 3 countries. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
Jeanett Strandbygaard, MD, PhD contact
3 sites in 3 countries
Denmark1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
Copenhagen University Hospital, Denmark
Copenhagen, 2100
Johanne Søborg Hartmann, RN, MScN, +4535450933, johanne.soeborg.hartmann@regionh.dk
Jeanett Strandbygaard, MD, PhD, +4535456789, jeanett.strandbygaard@regionh.dk
Germany1 site, 1 recruiting
- Not yet recruiting
University Hospital UKE
Hamburg
Laetitia Hampe, MD, l.hampe@uke.de
Felix Nickel, MD, PhD, Professor, f.nickel@uke.de
Netherlands1 site, 1 recruiting
- Not yet recruiting
Amsterdam University Medical Center (Amsterdam UMC)
Amsterdam
Anne Feenstra, MD, +31204440267, a.feenstra@amsterdamumc.nl
Marlies Schijven, MD, PhD, Professor, m.p.schijven@amsterdamumc.nl
About this study
Official title: Improving Postoperative Debriefings: the Added Value of Operating Room Black Box Supported Debriefings and Their Effect on Healthcare Professionals Perceived Effectiveness and Psychological Safety.
This study is enrolled in the European KEEPCARING Project. KEEPCARING aims to (re-)build wellbeing and resilience of healthcare workforce in EU hospitals by co-creating a multi-faceted non-digital, digital, and AI-supported solution package to prevent burnout among (aspirant) healthcare professionals on the individual, team, and organizational level.
This study specifically investigate the operating room staff wellbeing and resilience. The healthcare system is currently struggling to retain and attract operating room personnel. A factor of importance to consider here is occupational stress. If not recognized or mitigated well, occupational stress and personal efficacy can eventually evolve into a syndrome labelled as 'burnout'. In addition, communication and resilience patterns between operating room staff members are of influence, poor and/or inadequate communication among staff may be a factor of stress, compromising their work and wellbeing. In contrast, communication patterns that have a high standard and clarity may support resilience. The ability to speak up and being able to advocate concerns of all team members is of the highest importance here. Indeed, psychological safety and effective teamwork patterns are key for the working environment, performance, patient safety, and job satisfaction. To prevent mistakes during surgery, a safe space where team members can freely speak up is vital.
Read more
To improve psychological safety, and teamwork among OR staff, team debriefing after surgery is known to be effective. What is not known; is whether team debriefing with the additional support derived from audio- and video recordings of the surgery is equally effective as debriefing without.
The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of structured postoperative debriefings with and without procedural, structured audio- and video recordings, on team performance, psychological safety, and non-technical skills in the operating room. Specifically, this study aims to compare augmented debriefings with non-augmented debriefings, to assess differences in perceived usefulness, psychological safety, and observed improvements in teams' non-technical skills.
This is an international quasi-experimental comparative study. The intervention consists of postoperative team debriefing using audio and video recordings ('augmented debriefing') from Operating Room Black Box system provided by Surgical Safety Technologies. The control group will have a postoperative team debriefing that is not augmented with Operating Room Black Box derived data. An identical debriefing template will be designed for both groups.
Read the detailed description
Design and setting This is an international quasi-experimental comparative study, following the guidelines for complex interventions in health. The intervention will be ORBB augmented team-debriefing after surgery. The control group will debrief after surgery without the assistance of the ORBB. An identical debriefing template has been designed for both groups.
This study will be conducted at OR departments in three university hospitals, located in three different countries: Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital (RIGS), Amsterdam University Medical Center (AUMC) and University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE). RIGS have nine OR's with ORBB installed and access to ORBB-generated video material and outcome reports using explainable AI. AUMC is expected to have two OR's with ORBB installed before beginning of study. RIGS and AUMC are planned as both interventions and control sites, AUMC will if unforeseen delays occur with ORBB installation, be a control site (e.g. have only non-augmented debriefings). UKE does not have ORBB and will be a control site.
Characteristics of the study population
Participants Full OR teams performing elective daytime surgeries, approximately 4-12 people per team. The teams will be selected from a variety of specialties such as cardiothoracic, gynecology, urology, abdominal, vascular, and orthopedic surgery. Depending on the variety and possibility at each site, RIGS, AUMC and UKE, including limitations due to which ORs have ORBB installed.
Intervention Investigators anticipate that the intervention of the study occurs over a 1-month period for each team. In total, the intervention period is scheduled over a one-year period within 2026. During all data collection team members speak in their native language, so for RIGS this is Danish, for AUMC Dutch and for UKE German. The intervention includes a baseline questionnaire, a surgery, a short questionnaire after surgery, an observed debriefing and a follow up questionnaire after surgery.
The intervention set up is the same for teams with and without ORBB, only difference is the audio and video from the ORBB and SST. Furthermore, the debriefings will be audio recorded, and a researcher will observe the sessions. After the intervention period, a sample of participants will be asked to participate in a qualitive interview study.
Preparation before team debriefing After surgery the OR team members individually fill out a short questionnaire. Team members will answer questions about the following four topics: overall procedure, teamwork, safety protocols and learning opportunities.
The key points are wide in their definitions purposely because the team members should have the possibility to choose meaningful moments from the actual OR situation within the four topics. They must answer the questionnaire within 12 hours after surgery, to secure that the OR episode is still fresh in their minds.
Afterwards the researcher on site will review the questionnaires and during non-augmented debriefings bring their answers into play. During augmented debriefings, the researcher will 'flag' the surgery within the SST platform and in collaboration with SST create 2-4 videoclips, that contains the key elements chosen by the team members.
Team debriefing The setup in both augmented and non-augmented debriefings focus on creating a dedicated learning environment that prioritizes reflection, open communication, and psychological safety during the sessions. The physical space is carefully designed to support these critical aspects of team learning and collaboration.
In every debriefing an independent educational specialist (with no formal or working relation to the OR) is used as a moderator that controls the conversation and follow the debriefing template.
During the debriefing a researcher observes the conversation and interactions between team members and the moderator. The observing researcher sits in a corner of the room, disturbing as little as possible, being quiet and only taking field notes of the interaction between the team members and the moderator. The debriefing sessions will be audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim by the observing researcher.
The session is time-limited to 30-60 minutes, balancing comprehensive discussion with efficiency. Critically, the debriefing is ideally conducted after approximately 5 (to a maximum of 21 days) following the surgery, allowing team members sufficient time to process the experience while maintaining the immediacy of relevant insights and reflections emotionally and professionally.
At the same time, securing the researchers a timespan to overview the short questionnaires, and select key points, for the moderator to work with in the debriefing sessions. Specific for the ORBB augmented debriefings, at the same time securing a timespan for the researchers to select and prepare 2-4 videoclips within the ORBB platform in collaboration with SST before the debriefing.
Debriefing template for debriefing In this study investigators implement a six-step team debriefing model, tested with a high rate of participant satisfaction (7.8/10 rating) in a previous study on 35 ORBB augmented abdominal surgery team debriefing sessions. The researchers concluded that their proposed approach effectively facilitates OR debriefing across diverse healthcare settings and provides a viable framework for establishing a much-needed debriefing culture to enhance surgical team performance. Investigators adjusted the model with few moderations to fit both OR debriefings with and without ORBB augmented data, and to include more OR specialties, on top of abdominal OR teams.
During the debriefings the moderator controls the conversation, and every team member represents their field of expertise in the OR. The moderator follows the themes; experience, observation, analyze and application.
During the debriefings all teams will focus on psychological safety and problem solving within the following four key points: overall procedure, teamwork, safety protocols and learning opportunities. For the intervention sites, the debriefing templates are the same as the control site, only add on is the ORBB augmented material of 2-4 videoclips and objective data from SST platform, integrated into the debriefing templates.
Data and Outcomes Investigators will gather data about the debriefings and measure outcomes through the following measurement tools; observation and audio recording of team debriefings, individual pre- and post-debriefing questionnaires and qualitative interviews. Specifically for surgeries using the ORBB system, OR teams will also be observed through audio and video-review from ORBB, including AI statistical data provided by SST.
This will allow for in-depth analysis of team dynamics, providing a structured approach to understanding and improving collaborative practices in surgical settings. By capturing both quantitative ratings and qualitative insights, the research aims to develop targeted strategies that can elevate team communication, psychological safety, and overall performance.
Regulatory and ethics The coordinating hospital for this study is RIGS. In 2019, the Danish Data Protection Agency approved the overall ORBB project (registration no.: VD-2019-275). The project was submitted to the Regional Ethics Committee in 2018, and no ethical approval was needed (registration no.: H-18018801). Additional approval for this debriefing study has been obtained in 2025 from the Regional Legal and Ethics Committee in Copenhagen, Denmark, PRIVACY - legal GRC (ID-NUMBER: p-2025-19044).
Participation in this study is voluntary and thus consent based. All participants will receive oral and written information before entering the study, and they must sign a consent form to participate. Participants can withdraw their consent at any time. Data will be stored on certified servers of Zenodo, which complies with all regulations and applicable laws. Data will also be stored locally in the department's computer system drive.
- Conditions
- Stress, Resilience, Psychological Safety, Burnout, Healthcare Workers, Teamwork
- Being tested
- Debriefing
- Keywords
- debriefing, teamwork, psychological safety, operating room, operating room black box
- Medical subject headings
- Burnout, Psychological
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
DebriefingBehavioural
Debriefing after surgery for operating room staff
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Debriefings with Operating Room Black Box audio and video material | Other | Operating Room Black Box audio and video material included in debriefings Receives: Behavioral: Debriefing |
| Debriefings without Operating Room Black Box audio and video material | Other | Debriefings without Operating Room Black Box audio and video material Receives: Behavioral: Debriefing |
| Observation of team debriefing | Other | Observational study part of team member interaction during the team debriefing Receives: Behavioral: Debriefing |
| Qualitative interviews after team debriefing | Other | Qualitative interview study part of team members after debriefing Receives: Behavioral: Debriefing |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Psychological safety
Amy Edmondsons Scale on psychological safety and learning behaviour in operating room teams. 7 items scale; minimum value 1, maximum value 5.
Measured: 1-3 months
Usefulness and satisfaction of the team-debriefing
Usefulness and satisfaction of the team-debriefing, Van Dalen scale. 6 items score, minimum value 1, maximum value 5.
Measured: 1-3 months
Secondary outcomes (1)
Health and quality of life (Validated scale EQ-5D-3L)
We include the following 3 dimensions from the EQ-5D-3L descriptive system; usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression. Each dimension has 3 levels: no problems, some problems, and extreme problems. The participant is asked to indicate his/her health state by ticking the box next to the most appropriate statement in each of the three dimensions.
Measured: 1-3 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted9 Feb 2026
- Study start1 Mar 2026
- Primary completion1 Dec 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion1 Oct 2027 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (68)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for StressStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 135 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- ORNND - Operating Room Nurse Network Denmark
- Sponsor type
- Research network
- Collaborators
- Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Johanne Søborg Hartmann, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07396675
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- KEEPCARING EU Debriefing WP3
- Acronym
- ORBLACKBOX
- Status last verified
- Jul 2026
- First submitted
- 14 Aug 2025
- Last updated
- 23 Jul 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
The ethnographic interview af James P. Spradley
Brinkmann S, Kvale S. Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage; 2003.
Oakley A, Strange V, Bonell C, Allen E, Stephenson J; RIPPLE Study Team. Process evaluation in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions. BMJ. 2006 Feb 18;332(7538):413-6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.332.7538.413.
PubMed 16484270Rose Gillian. Visual methodologies : an introduction to researching with visual materials. 2023;454.
Cook DA, Brydges R, Ginsburg S, Hatala R. A contemporary approach to validity arguments: a practical guide to Kane's framework. Med Educ. 2015 Jun;49(6):560-75. doi: 10.1111/medu.12678.
PubMed 25989405Spradley JP. Qualitative Research Guide: Participant Observation. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc
Yule S, Flin R, Paterson-Brown S, Maran N, Rowley D. Development of a rating system for surgeons' non-technical skills. Med Educ. 2006 Nov;40(11):1098-104. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02610.x.
PubMed 17054619Gaba DM. Crisis resource management and teamwork training in anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 2010 Jul;105(1):3-6. doi: 10.1093/bja/aeq124. No abstract available.
PubMed 20551023Biesta GJJ, van Braak M. Beyond the Medical Model: Thinking Differently about Medical Education and Medical Education Research. Teach Learn Med. 2020 Aug-Sep;32(4):449-456. doi: 10.1080/10401334.2020.1798240. Epub 2020 Aug 15.
PubMed 32799696Gadamer HG. Truth and method. Bloomsbury Academic; 1960.
Cantor GN, Bhaskar R. The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences. Philos Q. 1982 Jul;32(128):280.
Alvesson Mats, Sköldberg Kaj. Reflexive methodology : new vistas for qualitative research. 2018;437.
Cheng A, Eppich W, Grant V, Sherbino J, Zendejas B, Cook DA. Debriefing for technology-enhanced simulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Educ. 2014 Jul;48(7):657-66. doi: 10.1111/medu.12432.
PubMed 24909527Nembhard IM, Edmondson AC. Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. J Organ Behav
Hallberg Ingalill, Richards DA. Complex interventions in health : an overview of research methods
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 23 Jul 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Improving Postoperative Debriefings: the Added Value of Operating Room Black Box Supported Debriefings and Their Effect on Healthcare Professionals Perceived Effectiveness and Psychological Safety.
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07396675
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- ORBLACKBOX / KEEPCARING EU Debriefing WP3
- Conditions
- Stress, Resilience, Psychological Safety, Burnout, Healthcare Workers, Teamwork
- Keywords
- debriefing, teamwork, psychological safety, operating room, operating room black box
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Recruiting
- Enrolment
- 135 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- ORNND - Operating Room Nurse Network DenmarkResearch network
- Collaborators
- Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc
- Study start
- 1 Mar 2026 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 1 Dec 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 1 Oct 2027 (estimated)
- First posted
- 9 Feb 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This study is enrolled in the European KEEPCARING Project. KEEPCARING aims to (re-)build wellbeing and resilience of healthcare workforce in EU hospitals by co-creating a multi-faceted non-digital, digital, and AI-supported solution package to prevent burnout among (aspirant) healthcare professionals on the individual, team, and organizational level.
This study specifically investigate the operating room staff wellbeing and resilience. The healthcare system is currently struggling to retain and attract operating room personnel. A factor of importance to consider here is occupational stress. If not recognized or mitigated well, occupational stress and personal efficacy can eventually evolve into a syndrome labelled as 'burnout'. In addition, communication and resilience patterns between operating room staff members are of influence, poor and/or inadequate communication among staff may be a factor of stress, compromising their work and wellbeing. In contrast, communication patterns that have a high standard and clarity may support resilience. The ability to speak up and being able to advocate concerns of all team members is of the highest importance here. Indeed, psychological safety and effective teamwork patterns are key for the working environment, performance, patient safety, and job satisfaction. To prevent mistakes during surgery, a safe space where team members can freely speak up is vital.
To improve psychological safety, and teamwork among OR staff, team debriefing after surgery is known to be effective. What is not known; is whether team debriefing with the additional support derived from audio- and video recordings of the surgery is equally effective as debriefing without.
The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of structured postoperative debriefings with and without procedural, structured audio- and video recordings, on team performance, psychological safety, and non-technical skills in the operating room. Specifically, this study aims to compare augmented debriefings with non-augmented debriefings, to assess differences in perceived usefulness, psychological safety, and observed improvements in teams' non-technical skills.
This is an international quasi-experimental comparative study. The intervention consists of postoperative team debriefing using audio and video recordings ('augmented debriefing') from Operating Room Black Box system provided by Surgical Safety Technologies. The control group will have a postoperative team debriefing that is not augmented with Operating Room Black Box derived data. An identical debriefing template will be designed for both groups.
Detailed description
Design and setting This is an international quasi-experimental comparative study, following the guidelines for complex interventions in health. The intervention will be ORBB augmented team-debriefing after surgery. The control group will debrief after surgery without the assistance of the ORBB. An identical debriefing template has been designed for both groups.
This study will be conducted at OR departments in three university hospitals, located in three different countries: Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital (RIGS), Amsterdam University Medical Center (AUMC) and University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE). RIGS have nine OR's with ORBB installed and access to ORBB-generated video material and outcome reports using explainable AI. AUMC is expected to have two OR's with ORBB installed before beginning of study. RIGS and AUMC are planned as both interventions and control sites, AUMC will if unforeseen delays occur with ORBB installation, be a control site (e.g. have only non-augmented debriefings). UKE does not have ORBB and will be a control site.
Characteristics of the study population
Participants Full OR teams performing elective daytime surgeries, approximately 4-12 people per team. The teams will be selected from a variety of specialties such as cardiothoracic, gynecology, urology, abdominal, vascular, and orthopedic surgery. Depending on the variety and possibility at each site, RIGS, AUMC and UKE, including limitations due to which ORs have ORBB installed.
Intervention Investigators anticipate that the intervention of the study occurs over a 1-month period for each team. In total, the intervention period is scheduled over a one-year period within 2026. During all data collection team members speak in their native language, so for RIGS this is Danish, for AUMC Dutch and for UKE German. The intervention includes a baseline questionnaire, a surgery, a short questionnaire after surgery, an observed debriefing and a follow up questionnaire after surgery.
The intervention set up is the same for teams with and without ORBB, only difference is the audio and video from the ORBB and SST. Furthermore, the debriefings will be audio recorded, and a researcher will observe the sessions. After the intervention period, a sample of participants will be asked to participate in a qualitive interview study.
Preparation before team debriefing After surgery the OR team members individually fill out a short questionnaire. Team members will answer questions about the following four topics: overall procedure, teamwork, safety protocols and learning opportunities.
The key points are wide in their definitions purposely because the team members should have the possibility to choose meaningful moments from the actual OR situation within the four topics. They must answer the questionnaire within 12 hours after surgery, to secure that the OR episode is still fresh in their minds.
Afterwards the researcher on site will review the questionnaires and during non-augmented debriefings bring their answers into play. During augmented debriefings, the researcher will 'flag' the surgery within the SST platform and in collaboration with SST create 2-4 videoclips, that contains the key elements chosen by the team members.
Team debriefing The setup in both augmented and non-augmented debriefings focus on creating a dedicated learning environment that prioritizes reflection, open communication, and psychological safety during the sessions. The physical space is carefully designed to support these critical aspects of team learning and collaboration.
In every debriefing an independent educational specialist (with no formal or working relation to the OR) is used as a moderator that controls the conversation and follow the debriefing template.
During the debriefing a researcher observes the conversation and interactions between team members and the moderator. The observing researcher sits in a corner of the room, disturbing as little as possible, being quiet and only taking field notes of the interaction between the team members and the moderator. The debriefing sessions will be audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim by the observing researcher.
The session is time-limited to 30-60 minutes, balancing comprehensive discussion with efficiency. Critically, the debriefing is ideally conducted after approximately 5 (to a maximum of 21 days) following the surgery, allowing team members sufficient time to process the experience while maintaining the immediacy of relevant insights and reflections emotionally and professionally.
At the same time, securing the researchers a timespan to overview the short questionnaires, and select key points, for the moderator to work with in the debriefing sessions. Specific for the ORBB augmented debriefings, at the same time securing a timespan for the researchers to select and prepare 2-4 videoclips within the ORBB platform in collaboration with SST before the debriefing.
Debriefing template for debriefing In this study investigators implement a six-step team debriefing model, tested with a high rate of participant satisfaction (7.8/10 rating) in a previous study on 35 ORBB augmented abdominal surgery team debriefing sessions. The researchers concluded that their proposed approach effectively facilitates OR debriefing across diverse healthcare settings and provides a viable framework for establishing a much-needed debriefing culture to enhance surgical team performance. Investigators adjusted the model with few moderations to fit both OR debriefings with and without ORBB augmented data, and to include more OR specialties, on top of abdominal OR teams.
During the debriefings the moderator controls the conversation, and every team member represents their field of expertise in the OR. The moderator follows the themes; experience, observation, analyze and application.
During the debriefings all teams will focus on psychological safety and problem solving within the following four key points: overall procedure, teamwork, safety protocols and learning opportunities. For the intervention sites, the debriefing templates are the same as the control site, only add on is the ORBB augmented material of 2-4 videoclips and objective data from SST platform, integrated into the debriefing templates.
Data and Outcomes Investigators will gather data about the debriefings and measure outcomes through the following measurement tools; observation and audio recording of team debriefings, individual pre- and post-debriefing questionnaires and qualitative interviews. Specifically for surgeries using the ORBB system, OR teams will also be observed through audio and video-review from ORBB, including AI statistical data provided by SST.
This will allow for in-depth analysis of team dynamics, providing a structured approach to understanding and improving collaborative practices in surgical settings. By capturing both quantitative ratings and qualitative insights, the research aims to develop targeted strategies that can elevate team communication, psychological safety, and overall performance.
Regulatory and ethics The coordinating hospital for this study is RIGS. In 2019, the Danish Data Protection Agency approved the overall ORBB project (registration no.: VD-2019-275). The project was submitted to the Regional Ethics Committee in 2018, and no ethical approval was needed (registration no.: H-18018801). Additional approval for this debriefing study has been obtained in 2025 from the Regional Legal and Ethics Committee in Copenhagen, Denmark, PRIVACY - legal GRC (ID-NUMBER: p-2025-19044).
Participation in this study is voluntary and thus consent based. All participants will receive oral and written information before entering the study, and they must sign a consent form to participate. Participants can withdraw their consent at any time. Data will be stored on certified servers of Zenodo, which complies with all regulations and applicable laws. Data will also be stored locally in the department's computer system drive.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 4
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Debriefings with Operating Room Black Box audio and video material | Other | Behavioral: DebriefingOperating Room Black Box audio and video material included in debriefings |
| Debriefings without Operating Room Black Box audio and video material | Other | Behavioral: DebriefingDebriefings without Operating Room Black Box audio and video material |
| Observation of team debriefing | Other | Behavioral: DebriefingObservational study part of team member interaction during the team debriefing |
| Qualitative interviews after team debriefing | Other | Behavioral: DebriefingQualitative interview study part of team members after debriefing |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Participants work in an OR-team at RIGS, AUMC or UKE.
- Participants must have given informed written consent to participate in the study.
- Participants must be in the OR for the majority of the procedure or/and have a central role in the teamwork.
- At RIGS and AUMC participants for the ORBB debriefings must also be part of teams conducting surgeries in the OR where ORBB is installed (not all ORs have ORBB).
- Participants can either be surgeons, anesthesiologist, anesthesia nurses, residents, OR-nurses, perfusionists, interns, nurse students or other OR-staff.
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Visitors, guests, and other staff only watching the surgery, are excluded from participation.
- Individuals who are unable or unwilling to provide written informed consent.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| DebriefingDebriefing after surgery for operating room staff | Behavioural | Debriefings with Operating Room Black Box audio and video material, Debriefings without Operating Room Black Box audio and video material, Observation of team debriefing, Qualitative interviews after team debriefing |
Primary outcome
Psychological safety
Time frame: 1-3 months
Amy Edmondsons Scale on psychological safety and learning behaviour in operating room teams. 7 items scale; minimum value 1, maximum value 5.
Usefulness and satisfaction of the team-debriefing
Time frame: 1-3 months
Usefulness and satisfaction of the team-debriefing, Van Dalen scale. 6 items score, minimum value 1, maximum value 5.
1 secondary outcome
Health and quality of life (Validated scale EQ-5D-3L)
Time frame: 1-3 months
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 23 Jul 2026.
- BackgroundThe ethnographic interview af James P. Spradley
- BackgroundBrinkmann S, Kvale S. Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage; 2003.
- Background: PubMed 16484270Oakley A, Strange V, Bonell C, Allen E, Stephenson J; RIPPLE Study Team. Process evaluation in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions. BMJ. 2006 Feb 18;332(7538):413-6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.332.7538.413.
- BackgroundRose Gillian. Visual methodologies : an introduction to researching with visual materials. 2023;454.
- Background: PubMed 25989405Cook DA, Brydges R, Ginsburg S, Hatala R. A contemporary approach to validity arguments: a practical guide to Kane's framework. Med Educ. 2015 Jun;49(6):560-75. doi: 10.1111/medu.12678.
- BackgroundSpradley JP. Qualitative Research Guide: Participant Observation. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc
- Background: PubMed 17054619Yule S, Flin R, Paterson-Brown S, Maran N, Rowley D. Development of a rating system for surgeons' non-technical skills. Med Educ. 2006 Nov;40(11):1098-104. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02610.x.
- Background: PubMed 20551023Gaba DM. Crisis resource management and teamwork training in anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 2010 Jul;105(1):3-6. doi: 10.1093/bja/aeq124. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 32799696Biesta GJJ, van Braak M. Beyond the Medical Model: Thinking Differently about Medical Education and Medical Education Research. Teach Learn Med. 2020 Aug-Sep;32(4):449-456. doi: 10.1080/10401334.2020.1798240. Epub 2020 Aug 15.
- BackgroundGadamer HG. Truth and method. Bloomsbury Academic; 1960.
- BackgroundCantor GN, Bhaskar R. The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences. Philos Q. 1982 Jul;32(128):280.
- BackgroundAlvesson Mats, Sköldberg Kaj. Reflexive methodology : new vistas for qualitative research. 2018;437.
- Burn out an occupational phenomenLink provided by the sponsor.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Stress
RecruitingPhase 1
Study of Preoperative Radiation Therapy in Participants With Resectable Recurrent Abdominal Adrenocortical Carcinoma
Adrenocortical Carcinoma (ACC), Recurrent Adrenocortical Carcinoma (ACC)
RecruitingPhase 4
Effect of a Furosemide Stress Test-Guided Strategy on Liberation From Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy in Critically Ill Patients With Acute Kidney Injury
Acute Kidney Injury
Not yet recruiting
Mandala Coloring in Late Pregnancy
Pregnancy, Anxiety
Active, not recruiting
Chicago Parent Program for Foster and Kinship Caregivers
Behavior Problem, Parenting
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Ecological Momentary Assessment of State-Dependent Decision-Making and Metacognition Across a Psychopathology Continuum
Depression, Anxiety
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
Jeanett Strandbygaard, MD, PhD contact
3 sites in 3 countries: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Debriefing in people with Stress and Resilience, run by ORNND - Operating Room Nurse Network Denmark at 3 sites in 3 countries.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 5 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: looking for participants now, as of the sponsor's last update on 23 Jul 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 3 sites in Denmark, Germany, Netherlands. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Johanne S Hartmann, RN, MScN (+4535450933, johanne.soeborg.hartmann@regionh.dk), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Psychological safety (time frame: 1-3 months). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07396675, which also lists 68 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 23 Jul 2026.