All sample reportsSample output · synthetic data
This is a demonstration report built from a synthetic response set. Scores, narrative structure, dimension banding and the 90 day plan are generated by the same engine used for live waves. Live reports add an AI written narrative tuned to the actual score pattern. Unit level reports are only released once the anonymity threshold of five respondents is met.
LeaderDNA

LeaderDNA HealthDNA™

LeaderDNA Care Team Effectiveness Assessment™

Intensive Care Unit · Sample Team (Interdisciplinary Care Team, ICU, 18 respondents)

Care Team Effectiveness Index113 / 175Coordinating · 56% of scale
LeaderDNA AssessmentsJanuary 15, 2026

Executive summary

The team works, with predictable friction points.

Sample Team (Interdisciplinary Care Team, ICU, 18 respondents) scored 113 out of 175 on the Care Team Effectiveness Index, placing in the Coordinating tier. The team works, with predictable friction points. The strongest dimensions are Interdisciplinary Communication, Role Clarity, Mutual Trust & Respect. The clearest priorities are Outcome Focus, Rounding & Shared Planning, Decision Making & Escalation. 1 of 7 dimensions fall in the At Risk band.

Recommendation

The team works, with predictable friction points. Focus the next 90 days on Outcome Focus and Rounding & Shared Planning, which are carrying the most risk in this profile. Reassess against the same dimensions at the end of the cycle.

Your next actions

  1. 1Fix the two lowest dimensions with process changes, not meetings.
  2. 2Clarify who owns which decisions.
  3. 3Standardize the handoff format.
  4. 4Bring quieter disciplines into rounds deliberately.
  5. 5Re-pulse in 90 days.

Aggregate report. Individual responses are anonymous and are never shown to leaders. Results are released only once the minimum respondent threshold is met.

The profile

Dimension scores

Role Clarity20/25 · Solid
Handoffs & Transitions17/25 · Solid
Rounding & Shared Planning12/25 · Developing
Interdisciplinary Communication22/25 · Strong
Decision Making & Escalation14/25 · Developing
Mutual Trust & Respect18/25 · Solid
Outcome Focus10/25 · At Risk
1
Strong
3
Solid
2
Developing
1
At Risk

Dimension by dimension

What each score means

Role Clarity

20/25 · Solid

Clear understanding of who does what, and where responsibility transfers.

Next action: Pick one recurring situation where role clarity matters most and raise the standard there for 90 days.

Handoffs & Transitions

17/25 · Solid

Quality of shift, unit, and discipline to discipline handoffs.

Next action: Pick one recurring situation where handoffs & transitions matters most and raise the standard there for 90 days.

Rounding & Shared Planning

12/25 · Developing

Whether the team builds and shares a single plan for each patient.

Next action: Set a fixed rounding time with required attendance and a named facilitator.

Interdisciplinary Communication

22/25 · Strong

Timeliness and clarity of communication between nursing, medicine, pharmacy, lab, and therapy.

Next action: Keep interdisciplinary communication where it is and make it teachable: document what you do and coach one peer through it this quarter.

Decision Making & Escalation

14/25 · Developing

How quickly and clearly clinical decisions and escalations happen.

Next action: Publish one escalation pathway with names, numbers, and expected response times.

Mutual Trust & Respect

18/25 · Solid

Whether disciplines respect and rely on each other's judgment.

Next action: Pick one recurring situation where mutual trust & respect matters most and raise the standard there for 90 days.

Outcome Focus

10/25 · At Risk

Whether the team shares and acts on the same outcome measures.

Next action: Treat outcome focus as a top-two priority. Post two shared metrics the whole team affects and review them weekly.

Where you stand

Strengths and priorities

Top strengths

  • •Interdisciplinary Communication: Disciplines reach each other quickly and get clear answers.
  • •Role Clarity: Work does not fall through the gaps between disciplines.
  • •Mutual Trust & Respect: Disciplines assume competence and ask before assuming error.

Development priorities

  • •Outcome Focus: Post two shared metrics the whole team affects and review them weekly.
  • •Rounding & Shared Planning: Set a fixed rounding time with required attendance and a named facilitator.
  • •Decision Making & Escalation: Publish one escalation pathway with names, numbers, and expected response times.

Risk factors

Outcome Focus

Without shared measures, each discipline optimizes its own workload.

Rounding & Shared Planning

Parallel plans produce conflicting messages to patients and families.

Decision Making & Escalation

Unclear escalation is a rescue failure waiting to happen.

What to do about it

Coaching focus and 90-day plan

Coaching recommendations

  • •Outcome Focus: Review one shared metric in every team huddle.
  • •Rounding & Shared Planning: End every round by stating the plan, the owner, and the target date aloud.
  • •Decision Making & Escalation: Debrief one delayed escalation each month with the whole team.
Days 1-30Fix the handoff
  • •Standardize one handoff format across all disciplines.
  • •Observe five handoffs and record what is missing.
  • •Work Outcome Focus: Review one shared metric in every team huddle.
Days 31-60Fix the rounds
  • •Set a consistent rounding time and required attendees.
  • •Assign one owner for each plan of care action.
  • •Work Rounding & Shared Planning: End every round by stating the plan, the owner, and the target date aloud.
Days 61-90Fix the escalation
  • •Publish one escalation pathway with names and timeframes.
  • •Re-pulse the team and compare.
  • •Work Decision Making & Escalation: Debrief one delayed escalation each month with the whole team.

Closing note

This profile is a snapshot, not a verdict. Work the two lowest dimensions deliberately for one quarter and reassess, the movement will tell you more than the first score did.