From a Team of Experts to an Expert Team in Congenital Cardiology: Making Distributed Expertise Usable

Congenital heart disease care depends on specialised expertise distributed across clinicians, disciplines, patients and families. But bringing knowledgeable individuals together does not guarantee that their distinct contributions shape a decision. In complex congenital heart disease, multidisciplinary deliberation must reconcile anatomy, physiology, procedural feasibility, longitudinal risk and patient priorities, often amid uncertainty. We distinguish a team’s possession of expertise from its collective capability to make that expertise usable. This distinction affirms, rather than questions, individual clinical judgement, professional responsibility and shared accountability for patients. We propose a testable conceptual framework in which relevant expertise becomes accessible, is expressed and understood, receives appropriate weight, and can revise the team’s understanding or decision. Congenital cardiology examples include choices between catheter-based and surgical intervention, anticipation of intensive-care needs, and consideration of treatment burden and family goals. Constructive disagreement may reveal overlooked information or competing interpretations, while patients and families contribute essential knowledge about daily life and acceptable trade-offs. Existing team-science research supports the framework’s rationale, but its ability to improve congenital heart outcomes has not been demonstrated. We outline a developmental cycle—map, observe, practise, review, adapt and re-map—through which programmes might examine how expertise enters decisions, identify missed contributions and learn across changing membership. Evaluation should combine prospective measures of decision quality and implementation with appropriately risk-adjusted clinical outcomes, patient and family experience, and longer-term trajectories. The objective is not consensus for its own sake, but better use of knowledge already available to care teams.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Pediatric Cardiology
Published
2026-11-04
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00246-026-04542-3
Primary Topic
Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

From a Team of Experts to an Expert Team in Congenital Cardiology: Making Distributed Expertise Usable

Joseph W. Rossano, Michael D. Taylor, Daniel J. Penny, Colin Joseph McMahon et al.
Pediatric Cardiology
Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
article

From a Team of Experts to an Expert Team in Congenital Cardiology: Making Distributed Expertise Usable

Joseph W. Rossano, Michael D. Taylor, Daniel J. Penny, Colin Joseph McMahon, Mark Lewin, Jeffrey Kim
article en

Abstract

Congenital heart disease care depends on specialised expertise distributed across clinicians, disciplines, patients and families. But bringing knowledgeable individuals together does not guarantee that their distinct contributions shape a decision. In complex congenital heart disease, multidisciplinary deliberation must reconcile anatomy, physiology, procedural feasibility, longitudinal risk and patient priorities, often amid uncertainty. We distinguish a team’s possession of expertise from its collective capability to make that expertise usable. This distinction affirms, rather than questions, individual clinical judgement, professional responsibility and shared accountability for patients. We propose a testable conceptual framework in which relevant expertise becomes accessible, is expressed and understood, receives appropriate weight, and can revise the team’s understanding or decision. Congenital cardiology examples include choices between catheter-based and surgical intervention, anticipation of intensive-care needs, and consideration of treatment burden and family goals. Constructive disagreement may reveal overlooked information or competing interpretations, while patients and families contribute essential knowledge about daily life and acceptable trade-offs. Existing team-science research supports the framework’s rationale, but its ability to improve congenital heart outcomes has not been demonstrated. We outline a developmental cycle—map, observe, practise, review, adapt and re-map—through which programmes might examine how expertise enters decisions, identify missed contributions and learn across changing membership. Evaluation should combine prospective measures of decision quality and implementation with appropriately risk-adjusted clinical outcomes, patient and family experience, and longer-term trajectories. The objective is not consensus for its own sake, but better use of knowledge already available to care teams.

Pediatric Cardiology
University College Dublin (IE), Seattle Children's Hospital (US), Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (US), Children's National (US), University of Washington Medical Center (US), Children's Health Ireland at Crumlin (IE), Texas Children's Hospital (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon