Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Closed-loop communication

Closed-loop communication is a structured, three-step technique used to verify the accurate transmission and comprehension of critical information, particularly in high-risk settings, where the sender delivers a message, the receiver acknowledges it by repeating or paraphrasing the content, and the sender confirms the interpretation to close the feedback loop.^[1]^[2] Originating from early military voice radio protocols to ensure messages were received beyond visual range—employing acknowledgments like "Roger" for receipt and "WILCO" for compliance—this method evolved into aviation's Crew Resource Management in the late 20th century to mitigate errors in complex operations.^[3]^[1] Its adoption in healthcare surged in the 1990s following the Institute of Medicine's report on medical errors, which identified communication failures as a leading cause of adverse events, leading to integration into programs like TeamSTEPPS for interprofessional teams.^[1]^[2] Key components include call-outs for announcing observations or actions, check-backs for querying and confirming orders, and standardized phrasing to minimize ambiguity, all of which foster shared situational awareness and accountability among team members.^[1]^[2] In practice, it is applied across domains such as emergency medicine, obstetrics, anesthesia, trauma resuscitation, and operating rooms, where it supports rapid, error-free coordination during crises like eclampsia management or surgical handoffs.^[1]^[3] The technique's efficacy lies in its ability to reduce miscommunication-related errors, which contribute to up to 30% of malpractice cases, while enhancing task efficiency, team dynamics, and patient safety outcomes through simulation-based training and cultural shifts toward egalitarian dialogue.^[1]^[3] Challenges such as hierarchical barriers or information overload can impede adoption, but repeated interprofessional exercises have demonstrated improvements in response times and error rates.^[1]

Definition and Principles

Core Concept

Closed-loop communication is a structured interaction technique in which the sender transmits a message, the receiver actively repeats or paraphrases it to confirm receipt and understanding, and the sender acknowledges the accuracy of the repetition to verify mutual comprehension. This process forms a feedback loop that ensures the intended information is correctly interpreted, particularly in environments where miscommunication could lead to severe consequences.^[2]^[1] The primary purpose of closed-loop communication is to eliminate ambiguities, reduce errors, and foster clear mutual understanding among participants, making it essential in high-stakes settings such as team-based operations requiring precision and reliability. By incorporating explicit confirmation steps, it addresses the limitations of one-way messaging, where assumptions about reception can result in unintended outcomes. This method promotes accountability and enhances overall team performance without relying on nonverbal cues.^[4]^[3] At its core, the basic model follows a simple sequence: the sender delivers the message, the receiver provides a readback or acknowledgment, and the sender issues a confirmation, thereby closing the loop. This cycle can be represented as Sender → Message → Receiver (repeat/acknowledge) → Sender (confirm). It emerged from the demands of precision in environments necessitating reliable transmission over distances, such as early radio protocols, where visual confirmation was impossible.^[1]^[3]^[5] Representative examples include verbal exchanges in radio protocols, such as a controller issuing instructions to a pilot—"Cleared to land on runway 27"—followed by the pilot's readback—"Cleared to land runway 27"—and the controller's confirmation—"Readback correct." Similar patterns appear in other critical interactions, like a team leader directing an action and receiving an echoed response to affirm alignment.^[2]^[5]

Comparison with Open-Loop Communication

Open-loop communication refers to a one-way transmission of information from sender to receiver without any mechanism for feedback or confirmation of understanding, relying solely on the assumption that the message has been accurately received and interpreted.^[6] This approach is common in routine announcements or broadcasts where immediate verification is not feasible, such as public service messages or standard briefings.^[6] In contrast, closed-loop communication incorporates explicit verification steps, where the receiver acknowledges and repeats back the message for the sender to confirm its accuracy, thereby closing the feedback cycle to ensure mutual understanding.^[6] The primary differences lie in this feedback integration: open-loop systems are simpler and faster for low-stakes interactions but carry a higher risk of misinterpretation due to unaddressed ambiguities or distractions, whereas closed-loop mitigates these risks through active confirmation, promoting reliability at the cost of additional time and effort.^[7] Closed-loop communication is particularly advantageous in high-risk environments, such as emergencies in healthcare or aviation, where miscommunication can lead to catastrophic outcomes like procedural errors or accidents.^[1] For instance, in surgical teams or air traffic control, the absence of feedback in open-loop exchanges has been linked to preventable incidents, underscoring the need for closed-loop to safeguard critical operations.^[1] The theoretical foundation of closed-loop communication draws from cybernetics, the study of control and communication in systems, which emphasizes feedback loops to regulate and correct information flow for stability and goal achievement.^[8] Pioneered by Norbert Wiener in his 1948 work Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, this concept highlights how feedback enables systems—whether mechanical, biological, or human—to adapt and reduce deviations from intended outcomes.^[8] Empirical evidence supports the superiority of closed-loop in error-prone settings; for example, a simulation-based study in a pediatric emergency department found that implementing closed-loop communication reduced overall medical errors from 19 to 5 instances across simulated high-acuity cases (rate ratio 3.8, P = .008), with medication errors dropping from 12 to 1 (rate ratio 12.0, P = .017), demonstrating up to 92% fewer such errors.^[7] Similarly, in healthcare simulations, closed-loop orders were completed 3.6 times faster than open-loop ones (HR 3.6, 95% CI: 2.5-5.3), further illustrating its efficiency in task execution and error prevention.^[9]

Procedure

Steps Involved

Closed-loop communication follows a structured three-step process to ensure accurate transmission and understanding of critical messages. In the first step, the sender clearly states the message, delivering it in a concise and unambiguous manner to minimize misinterpretation. For instance, the sender might say, "Administer 500 mg of medication," ensuring the instruction is specific and direct.^[2]^[10] In the second step, the receiver repeats the message verbatim or paraphrases it to confirm receipt and comprehension, thereby acknowledging the instruction. Using the prior example, the receiver would respond, "Administering 500 mg of medication," which allows the sender to assess whether the details were captured correctly. This repetition serves as feedback to close potential gaps in understanding.^[2]^[1] The third step involves the sender confirming the accuracy of the receiver's repetition, typically with a simple affirmation such as "Correct," thereby verifying that the message has been properly understood and the loop is closed. This confirmation step is essential for mutual assurance before proceeding.^[2] A common variation of this process is the "check-back" method, particularly in team settings, where the receiver initiates the confirmation by seeking or providing clarification on the sender's message, adapting the standard sequence to dynamic group interactions.^[10]^[11] The timing of these steps emphasizes immediacy, with acknowledgments and confirmations occurring without delay to preserve operational flow in high-stakes environments. Delays can disrupt momentum and increase error risks.^[2]^[1] Common pitfalls in executing these steps include vague or imprecise messaging from the sender, which complicates accurate repetition, or incomplete repeats by the receiver, leading to unverified assumptions and potential failures in the process. Additionally, failure to confirm can result in undetected misunderstandings, underscoring the need for strict adherence to each phase.^[10]^[2]

Key Components

Closed-loop communication relies on clearly defined roles for the sender and receiver to ensure message accuracy and comprehension. The sender, often the initiator of the message, is responsible for clearly conveying information and subsequently confirming that the receiver has understood it correctly, such as by acknowledging the feedback provided.^[2] In contrast, the receiver acts as the repeater and verifier, actively acknowledging the message by restating it and seeking clarification if needed before proceeding.^[1] These roles are interchangeable among team members in high-stakes environments like aviation and healthcare, where all participants, including team leaders, model and engage in the process to foster mutual verification.^[10] Verbal tools form the core of closed-loop communication, emphasizing standardized phrases to facilitate explicit confirmation. Common phrases include "readback" or "repeat back" in aviation contexts, where pilots echo air traffic control instructions to verify understanding, and "acknowledge" or "check" in healthcare settings to confirm receipt of critical orders. These tools, such as call-outs for immediate alerts and check-backs for verification, promote concise and direct exchanges, reducing ambiguity in team interactions.^[2] In face-to-face settings, non-verbal cues complement verbal elements by reinforcing the loop's closure, though they play a secondary role to explicit confirmations. Eye contact and confirmatory gestures, like nodding during readback, signal attentiveness and understanding between sender and receiver, enhancing trust in dynamic environments. However, reliance on non-verbal cues is limited in remote or high-noise scenarios, where verbal repetition remains paramount.^[1] Environmental factors significantly influence the efficacy of these components, particularly in high-pressure contexts. Elevated noise levels, such as in aircraft cockpits or emergency rooms, can disrupt message reception, necessitating louder or more deliberate verbal confirmations. Stress and workload overload similarly impair focus, potentially leading to incomplete loops, while hierarchical dynamics may inhibit receivers from voicing confirmations freely.^[10] Task overload in trauma simulations, for instance, has been shown to reduce the frequency of closed-loop instances.^[10] Training emphasizes integrating these components through structured protocols in programs like TeamSTEPPS, where tools such as SBAR (Situation-Background-Assessment-Recommendation) provide a standardized framework for handoffs and escalations that complements closed-loop techniques.^[4] Simulation-based exercises, including role-playing and debriefings in programs like TeamSTEPPS, build proficiency by practicing verbal tools and role reversals, with prior structured courses increasing closed-loop usage by up to threefold.^[1] In aviation, scenario-based training reinforces readback protocols through practical application, adapting to environmental challenges like vibration or fear. Metrics for success center on the confirmation rate, defined as the proportion of messages that receive explicit verbal acknowledgment and verification, serving as a direct indicator of loop closure.^[10] In trauma teams, this rate averages around 2.8 closed-loop communications per session, correlating with egalitarian leadership and reduced errors.^[10] Overall efficacy is further gauged by behavioral outcomes, such as a 50% reduction in risk-adjusted surgical mortality rates in teams trained with programs including closed-loop communication.^[1]

Historical Development

Military Origins

Closed-loop communication emerged during World War II as a critical component of U.S. military radio procedures, particularly in air traffic control and combat coordination, where noisy channels and high-stakes environments necessitated verification to prevent miscommunications.^[12] The U.S. Army Signal Corps developed standardized protocols to ensure message accuracy, emphasizing the repetition and acknowledgment of transmissions to confirm understanding amid interference from enemy jamming, engine noise, and battlefield chaos. These procedures were formalized in field manuals such as FM 24-5, Basic Field Manual: Signal Communication (1942), which outlined routines for radio operators to acknowledge receipt of messages using prowords like "Roger" to indicate reception and comprehension. The rationale for these protocols stemmed from the severe risks posed by misunderstood orders in warfare, where errors in coordination could lead to friendly fire incidents or failed missions with high fatality rates.^[12] In aviation contexts, the Army Air Forces adopted similar interactive feedback mechanisms in documents like Radiotelephone Procedure (1942), acknowledging receipt of instructions using prowords like "Roger" for received and understood, and "Wilco" for will comply, thereby closing the communication loop to mitigate dangers in dynamic combat scenarios.^[13] This approach addressed the limitations of one-way transmissions, enabling commanders to verify execution through bidirectional exchanges that enhanced operational control.^[12] Key examples of these precursors include the prowords "Roger," signifying "message received," and "Wilco," meaning "will comply," which originated in the 1940s phonetic alphabets and radio etiquette developed by the U.S. Army and Navy for efficient, error-resistant voice communications.^[14] These terms, drawn from early Joint Army/Navy procedures, facilitated quick acknowledgments without ambiguity, serving as foundational elements of the closed-loop method in military aviation protocols by the mid-1940s.^[14]

Evolution and Adoption

Following its origins in military radio protocols during World War II, closed-loop communication transitioned to civil aviation in the post-war era, with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) incorporating confirmation-based procedures into its standards post-war, including adoption of Annex 10 in 1949 for telecommunications and Annex 11 specifying read-back requirements for clearances in air traffic services.^[15] This integration marked a shift from ad hoc military practices to formalized global civil aviation norms, emphasizing feedback loops to ensure message accuracy in high-stakes environments. The 1977 Tenerife airport disaster, involving a runway collision between two Boeing 747 aircraft that resulted in 583 fatalities, served as a pivotal catalyst for wider adoption in aviation, as investigations revealed communication ambiguities that could have been mitigated by rigorous closed-loop verification, prompting ICAO and national regulators to reinforce standardized phraseology and confirmation protocols.^[16] In the late 1990s and 2000s, these aviation-derived techniques began permeating healthcare through patient safety initiatives following the 1999 Institute of Medicine report, with organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) and Joint Commission promoting structured communication standards.^[17] By the 2000s, adoption accelerated in healthcare with the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) integrating closed-loop communication into its TeamSTEPPS program launched in 2006, an evidence-based framework for team training that standardized feedback mechanisms to enhance coordination and reduce errors.^[18] In the 2020s, the practice continued to expand into areas like business management for project oversight and further into emergency services, as evidenced by studies on interprofessional teams in crises.^[19] Globally, its diffusion was supported by European Union aviation regulations under the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which harmonized ICAO standards including closed-loop elements in the Standardised European Rules of the Air (SERA), and by NATO doctrines such as AJMedP-5, which mandate closed-loop monitoring in joint medical operations.^[20]^[21]

Applications

In Aviation

Closed-loop communication has been integral to Crew Resource Management (CRM) training in aviation since its inception following a 1979 NASA workshop on resource management on the flight deck, which emphasized improving interpersonal communication to mitigate human error in high-stakes environments.^[22] This technique, involving the sender issuing an instruction, the receiver acknowledging and repeating it back for confirmation, and the sender verifying accuracy, became a core component of CRM programs adopted by airlines like United in 1981, evolving through generations to include team-based verification in cockpit and air traffic control interactions.^[22] In aviation operations, closed-loop communication is prominently used in air traffic control (ATC) interactions, where pilots provide readbacks of critical clearances, altitudes, and headings to ensure mutual understanding and prevent deviations.^[23] For instance, when ATC issues an altitude assignment such as "climb to flight level 210," the pilot responds with "climb to flight level 210," allowing the controller to confirm or correct any mishearing.^[24] This practice closes the communication loop, reducing the risk of errors in dynamic scenarios like vectoring or approach clearances.^[25] The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) mandates standardized phraseology in its Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM), requiring readbacks for all critical ATC instructions, including runway assignments, altitude changes, and heading vectors, to enforce closed-loop verification.^[23] Controllers often explicitly request "read back" for emphasis on safety-critical elements, such as hold-short instructions, ensuring the loop is completed before proceeding.^[26] A notable case illustrating the consequences of communication failures is the 1990 crash of Avianca Flight 052, where the crew's inadequate declaration of a fuel emergency—phrased as needing "priority" rather than an explicit emergency—led to a holding pattern and eventual fuel exhaustion, killing 73 people; the NTSB report highlighted the need for clearer communication of emergencies between the crew and ATC.^[27] This incident underscored the need for robust communication protocols, influencing subsequent CRM enhancements to prioritize assertive, verified messaging in fuel and emergency situations.^[27] Training for closed-loop communication occurs in simulator sessions within CRM curricula, simulating high-workload scenarios like adverse weather or system malfunctions to practice readbacks and hearbacks under stress, fostering habits that integrate with technical skills.^[28] These sessions, often part of recurrent Line Oriented Flight Training (LOFT), emphasize repeating instructions verbatim to build muscle memory for real-world application.^[22] Reported studies on CRM implementation, including closed-loop techniques, indicate reductions in human factors-related errors, contributing to overall declines in aviation accident rates.^[29]

In Healthcare

Closed-loop communication plays a vital role in healthcare settings, particularly in high-stakes environments like surgical briefings, medication orders, and emergency responses, where miscommunication can lead to adverse patient outcomes. By ensuring that instructions are not only transmitted but also acknowledged and verified, this technique minimizes errors and fosters team coordination essential for patient safety.^[1]^[2] In operating rooms, closed-loop orders are commonly employed to confirm critical details, such as medication dosages, by having the recipient repeat the information back to the sender for verification. This process is also integral to patient handoffs, where team members explicitly confirm receipt and understanding of key clinical data to prevent information loss during transitions. For instance, during surgical timeouts, the entire team may verbalize and acknowledge patient identifiers, procedure steps, and equipment checks to align on the plan.^[1]^[2] Similarly, in emergency scenarios like resuscitations, nurses or technicians repeat physician orders—such as "Administer 1 mg of epinephrine"—to ensure accurate execution.^[1] The TeamSTEPPS framework, introduced by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality in 2006, incorporates closed-loop communication as a core strategy for improving teamwork and integrates it with tools like CUS (Concerned, Uncomfortable, Safety issue)—a structured phrase for voicing concerns that prompts feedback loops.^[2] This model aligns with Joint Commission standards on effective communication, particularly National Patient Safety Goals that emphasize timely acknowledgment of critical results and orders to reduce risks.^[30]^[31] Evidence from studies demonstrates its impact, with implementation of team training programs including closed-loop communication associated with an 18% reduction in annual surgical mortality (rate ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.76-0.91) in Veterans Health Administration facilities.^[32] Such interventions have also linked to decreased procedural errors and improved task efficiency in operating room simulations.^[1] Recent advancements as of 2025 include AI-assisted closed-loop systems for mobile nursing information management, which provide real-time feedback to enhance accuracy and efficiency in patient care.^[33] Despite these benefits, adoption faces challenges, including hierarchical barriers in healthcare teams where junior staff may hesitate to seek or provide confirmation due to power dynamics, potentially undermining the feedback essential to the process.^[1]

In Other Fields

Closed-loop communication finds application in military operations beyond its origins, particularly in command chains where it ensures precise transmission of orders to minimize errors during high-stakes maneuvers.^[34] In business and team management, closed-loop communication is integrated into project meetings and remote work protocols to confirm task assignments and progress, reducing misunderstandings in distributed teams.^[35] For instance, in agile methodologies, it manifests through iterative feedback loops during sprints, where team members repeat and verify action items to align on deliverables.^[36] Emergency services employ closed-loop communication in radio protocols for incident response, with firefighters using it on the fireground to acknowledge commands like hose line advancements, thereby closing the feedback gap in dynamic, noisy conditions.^[37] Similarly, police operations adapt it for tactical radio exchanges, where officers repeat directives to confirm understanding amid rapid escalations.^[38] In sports medicine, closed-loop communication underpins coach-athlete interactions during games, where instructions on technique or injury prevention are echoed back to ensure accurate execution and reduce risk.^[39] This approach, often termed the coaching communication loop, involves pre-action cues, during-movement affirmations, and post-action reviews to foster safe performance.^[40] Emerging applications in the 2020s include software development, where code reviews incorporate closed-loop elements through iterative comments and author confirmations to refine contributions collaboratively.^[41] In customer service, it supports order verifications via scripted read-backs, ensuring accuracy in transactions and follow-up resolutions.^[6] Digital adaptations of closed-loop communication leverage tools like chat applications with read receipts, which provide visual confirmation of message delivery and comprehension, simulating verbal feedback in asynchronous environments.^[42] These features, common in secure messaging platforms, enable teams to verify receipt without explicit repetition, particularly in hybrid work settings.^[43]

Benefits and Limitations

Advantages

Closed-loop communication significantly reduces errors in high-stakes environments by ensuring that instructions are acknowledged and verified, preventing misinterpretations that lead to adverse outcomes. In pediatric trauma settings, for instance, up to 51% of critical orders went unacknowledged without this protocol (Webman et al., 2014), whereas its implementation led to faster task completion, such as magnesium administration in obstetric emergencies. Studies in healthcare demonstrate a quantifiable impact, with team training incorporating closed-loop communication associated with a 50% reduction in surgical mortality rates across diverse global sites (Neily et al., 2010). In aviation, where it originated as part of crew resource management, the protocol has contributed to safety improvements, including a decline in fatalities from approximately 2 per million passenger-miles in the early 20th century to odds of 1 in 4.7 million flights as of the early 2010s, alongside other factors like technological and regulatory advances minimizing communication-related incidents.^[1]^[44] This method fosters team cohesion by promoting active listening, feedback, and shared mental models, which build trust and accountability among members. Research highlights how closed-loop communication encourages egalitarian participation, allowing junior team members to voice concerns without hierarchy barriers, thereby enhancing mutual respect in trauma and resuscitation teams. In military-derived applications adapted to healthcare, it reduces interpersonal tension by clarifying roles and expectations, leading to stronger collaborative dynamics. Efficiency gains are evident in time-sensitive operations, where the protocol resolves ambiguities rapidly; for example, pediatric trauma teams using it completed essential tasks like IV line placement and medication administration more swiftly than those relying on open-loop exchanges (El-Shafy et al., 2018).^[1]^[45]^[46] Safety enhancements extend beyond error avoidance to broader risk mitigation, with empirical evidence showing fewer medical adverse events and aviation near-misses through verified message transmission. The protocol's scalability makes it adaptable from small ad-hoc teams to large organizations, requiring only minimal training—typically a simple three-step process of message initiation, feedback, and verification—that can be disseminated via brief simulations or workshops. Psychologically, it alleviates stress by confirming mutual understanding, reducing frustration and cognitive load in high-pressure scenarios like trauma resuscitations, where teams reported lower tension levels post-implementation.^[2]^[1]^[45]

Challenges and Criticisms

Closed-loop communication, while effective in structured environments, introduces several challenges that can hinder its practical application. One primary limitation is its time consumption, as the process of repeating and confirming messages adds seconds to interactions, potentially delaying urgent actions in high-stakes settings like emergency care.^[1] In time-critical situations, this increased workload may discourage its use, leading teams to revert to faster but riskier open-loop methods.^[1] Implementation barriers further complicate adoption, particularly in hierarchical cultures where junior staff may hesitate to seek clarification or confirm instructions due to deference to authority.^[1] Under stress or in chaotic environments, such as trauma resuscitations, incomplete loops are common, as teams prioritize speed over verification, resulting in reduced overall performance.^[47] Organizational hierarchies and professional silos exacerbate these issues, creating resistance to interprofessional feedback.^[1] Over-reliance on closed-loop communication poses a risk of complacency, where rote confirmations occur without genuine comprehension, fostering overconfidence in message accuracy.^[48] This can undermine deeper team dynamics if the process becomes mechanical rather than adaptive to context.^[1] Measuring the effectiveness of closed-loop communication in real-time is difficult, as it relies on subjective observations and post-event analysis rather than automated metrics. Studies in simulations reveal variable adoption rates, with one analysis of trauma teams showing only 14% of call-outs resulting in full closed loops, averaging just 2.8 instances per team (Hargestam et al., 2013).^[49] Such inconsistencies highlight challenges in quantifying its impact beyond controlled settings.^[1] Criticisms of closed-loop communication include its limited efficacy in non-verbal or high-overload scenarios, where simultaneous confirmations from multiple team members can cause confusion and communication breakdown. In multicultural settings, cultural norms around direct feedback may reduce its reliability, as varying expectations for assertiveness affect loop completion.^[50] To mitigate these challenges, targeted training programs emphasize seamless integration of closed-loop techniques, helping teams balance verification with efficiency without prescribing specific methods.^[1]

References

[1]
Closed Loop Communication Training in Medical Simulation - NCBI
CLC is a communication model from military radio transmissions based on verbal feedback to ensure proper team understanding of a meaningful message.
[2]
Tool: Closed-Loop Communication - AHRQ
Closed-loop communication uses verbal feedback to ensure that messages are correctly understood by recipients using methods including call-outs, check-backs ...
[3]
Closed Loop Communication: Operating Room Team Training - crico
Sep 3, 2014 · Closed loop communication is a style of conveying information where each statement needs to be confirmed with a reply.
[4]
Section 1: Overview of Key Concepts and Tools - AHRQ
A closed-loop communication strategy used to ensure that information shared by one team member is correctly understood by another team member. Example: Dr. Moss ...
[5]
[PDF] Pilot English Language Proficiency and the Prevalence of ...
Air traffic control (ATC) voice communication is built upon a readback-hearback loop: Controllers send messages to pilots who listen.
[6]
What is a closed loop communication? A complete guide - Prezent
Sep 18, 2024 · Closed-loop communication differs significantly from open-loop communication, where no confirmation of understanding is required. In open-loop ...
[7]
Impact of Simulation-Based Closed-Loop Communication Training ...
Mar 23, 2020 · The authors hypothesized that simulation-based CLC training would improve staff perceptions of CLC ability and decrease medical errors.
[8]
Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the ...
With the influential book Cybernetics, first published in 1948, Norbert Wiener ... feedback loops, be they biological, mechanical, cognitive, or social. At ...
[9]
Closed-Loop Communication Improves Task Completion in ...
Orders with closed-loop communication were completed 3.6 times sooner as compared to orders with an open-loop [HR = 3.6 (95% CI: 2.5, 5.3)].
[10]
Communication in interdisciplinary teams: exploring closed-loop ...
Oct 19, 2013 · The communication strategy involves three steps: (1) the sender transmits a message: the CO, (2) the receiver accepts the message and ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[11]
https://doi.org/10.1518/001872007X312478
[12]
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA330892.pdf
[13]
Tool: SBAR | Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
SBAR is a communication framework for sharing information with teams and stands for Situation, Background, Assessment, and Recommendation or Requests.
[14]
[PDF] How Did the Evolution of Communications Affect Command ... - DTIC
Oct 24, 1997 · This new apparatus gave commanders an increased ability to control events and processes through interactive voice communications feedback loops.
[15]
[PDF] Radiotelephone Procedure Army Air Forces. - DTIC
The instructions are contained in the sentence preceding the words "Go ahead." The instructions are acknowledged, and the pilot indicates that he will comply ...
[16]
Doc Jargon: Roger, Robert, Romeo related by radio - DVIDS
Dec 7, 2022 · The North Atlantic Treaty Organization said this early version was used by the Army and Navy. Radio operators would say “Roger” or “Roger that” ...
[17]
A Brief History of the FAA | Federal Aviation Administration
On the eve of America's entry into World War II, for defense purposes, CAA extended its ATC system to include operation of airport towers. In the postwar era, ...A Brief History Of The Faa · Origins Of The Faa · Creation Of Faa's Air...
[18]
[PDF] Air-ground Communication Safety Study An analysis of pilot ...
Jun 16, 2004 · This report provides an analysis of the incidents related to air-ground communication between controllers and pilots.
[19]
Lessons Learned from the Tenerife Airport Disaster
Aug 18, 2020 · While much of the emphasis following the crash was on improving radio communications through standardized phraseology, the greatest change came ...<|separator|>
[20]
Communication: A Matter of Life and Death - Lippincott
After the Tenerife disaster, the airline industry developed a model called “Crew Resource Management (CRM),” which medicine has adopted. “CRM is about how human ...
[21]
Closed-Loop Communication in Interprofessional Emergency Teams
Mar 1, 2023 · The aim of the study was to explore the use of closed-loop communication by anesthesia personnel in real-life interprofessional emergency teams.
[22]
[PDF] Easy Access Rules for Airborne Communications, Navigation and ...
It will be the single source for all aviation safety rules applicable to European airspace users. It will offer easy (online) access to all rules and ...
[23]
[PDF] NATO STANDARD AJMedP-5 ALLIED JOINT DOCTRINE FOR ...
Oct 29, 2020 · Without a means to monitor task status, any action which requires closed-loop monitoring may be at risk of incompletion: orders entered in ...
[24]
[PDF] The Evolution of Crew Resource Management Training in ...
Abstract. Changes in the nature of CRM training in commercial aviation are described, including its shift from Cockpit to Crew Resource Management.
[25]
ATC Clearances and Aircraft Separation
Pilots of airborne aircraft should read back those parts of ATC clearances and instructions containing altitude assignments, vectors, or runway assignments as a ...Missing: loop | Show results with:loop
[26]
Pilot-Controller Communications (OGHFA BN) - SKYbrary
Whenever adverse factors are likely to affect communications, strict adherence to this closed loop constitutes a line of defense against communications errors.
[27]
ENR 1.1 General Rules and Procedures
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ARE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN FROM THE PILOT A READBACK OF ALL RUNWAY HOLD SHORT INSTRUCTIONS. Pilots operating a single pilot aircraft should ...Missing: loop | Show results with:loop
[28]
Read-back or Hear-back | SKYbrary Aviation Safety
Readback is a procedure whereby the receiving station repeats (part of) the message so as to obtain confirmation of correct reception.
[29]
[PDF] NTSB/AAR-91/04
Jan 25, 1990 · Contributing to the accident was the flightcrew's failure to use an airline operational control dispatch system to assist them during the.
[30]
CRM in Aviation: Enhancing Safety - American Eagle Flight Academy
Mar 12, 2025 · CRM ensures that all communication is clear, structured, and confirmed through standardized protocols like readbacks, checklists, and closed- ...
[31]
[PDF] CAA PAPER 2002/5 - Methods used to Evaluate the Effectiveness of ...
Jun 23, 2003 · However, in military aviation, five studies found that CRM training lead to a decrease in the rate of accidents and incidents. This ...
[32]
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/186748
[33]
Closed loop communication using provider team-specific ... - NIH
Sep 14, 2021 · Implementation of a closed-loop reporting system for critical values and clinical communication in compliance with goals of the joint Commission ...
[34]
Association Between Implementation of a Medical Team Training ...
Oct 20, 2010 · Participation in the VHA Medical Team Training program was associated with lower surgical mortality. Adverse events related to surgery continue to occur.
[35]
Closed Loop Communication - Quirk Solutions
Closed Loop Communication is a technique used by the military that reduces the risk of errors arising from misunderstandings and wrong assumptions.
[36]
Commander's Intent for Machines: Reimagining Unmanned Systems ...
Jul 16, 2025 · The prominence of jamming on the battlefield exposes a fundamental problem—the vulnerability of the link between a drone and its human operator.
[37]
Closed Loop Communication when completing tasks
Closed-loop communication for tasks involves confirming instructions, setting a deadline, reporting completion, and only closing the loop after the task is ...
[38]
Agile or Traditional - Must Operate as a Closed Loop Control System
Aug 14, 2023 · A closed loop means feedback for recording the output and comparing it with the desired state to take corrective action. Changes in the ...
[39]
Closing the Communications Loop on the Fireground
Jul 1, 2021 · This is the most common fireground communications loop used in the fire service. Obviously, the loop is not complete and lacks closure in the ...
[40]
Remember 2 Things: Understanding Closed Loop Radio ... - EMS1
Apr 19, 2018 · This type of communication ensures that both parties are participating in active listening, decreasing the chance of miscommunication by ...
[41]
What is the coaching communication loop and how can you use it?
Feb 10, 2021 · In this post we explore the coaching communication loop, examining what a coach should say before, during and after an athlete moves.
[42]
Human factors in sports medicine (Part 2) - BJSM blog
May 17, 2019 · Identifying an individual by their name, asking specific questions and confirming that the request was heard and understood (i.e., closed loop ...
[43]
A 6-Step Code Review Process to Improve Code & Collaboration
Code review enhances collaboration and communication among team members. It allows for immediate feedback and iterations, making the development process more ...
[44]
Say Goodbye to Paper and Pagers - EpicShare
Jul 25, 2022 · This information helps clinical staff adhere to a policy of “closed loop” communication, where senders can verify that their messages were ...
[45]
Digital health checkup: critical messaging - Ikonix Technology
In communication apps, however, the loop can be closed more readily, with options such as read receipts or quick-response actions and instant text replies.Missing: chat | Show results with:chat
[46]
[PDF] Closed-Loop Communication - Life Flight Network
Jun 13, 2023 · Loop clo- sure in quality reporting is the key to providing education, improving systems, and avoiding repetition of dangerous errors.
[47]
Communicating, coordinating, and cooperating when lives depend ...
A framework (a heuristic) represents a three-pronged approach to teamwork in health care that entails communication, coordination, and cooperation.
[48]
Closed loop communication in the trauma bay
Apr 12, 2022 · Closed loop communication in the trauma bay: identifying opportunities for team performance improvement through a video review analysis.<|control11|><|separator|>
[49]
What Is Closed Loop Communication? A Comprehensive Guide
Oct 5, 2025 · Unlike open-loop communication, where messages are sent without requiring confirmation, two-way communication involves feedback from the ...
[50]
exploring closed-loop communication during in situ trauma team ...
Results The results in this study showed that the use of CO and CLC in trauma teams was limited, with an average of 20 CO and 2.8 CLC/team.
[51]
Cultural differences in simulation debriefing: A qualitative analysis
... closed-loop communication, situational awareness, and cultural aspects of healthcare simulation debriefing. This study is a complementation to previously ...