Dataset Information

Team performance in resuscitation teams: comparison and critique of two recently developed scoring tools.

ABSTRACT:

Background and aim

Following high profile errors resulting in patient harm and attracting negative publicity, the healthcare sector has begun to focus on training non-technical teamworking skills as one way of reducing the rate of adverse events. Within the area of resuscitation, two tools have been developed recently aiming to assess these skills - TEAM and OSCAR. The aims of the study reported here were:

Methods

The study consisted of two phases - reliability assessment; and content comparison, and correlation. Assessments were made by two resuscitation experts, who watched 24 pre-recorded resuscitation simulations, and independently rated team behaviours using both tools. The tools were critically appraised, and correlation between overall score surrogates was assessed.

Results

Both OSCAR and TEAM achieved high levels of inter-rater reliability (in the form of adequate intra-class coefficients) and minor significant differences between Wilcoxon tests. Comparison of the scores from both tools demonstrated a high degree of correlation (and hence concurrent validity). Finally, critique of each tool highlighted differences in length and complexity.

Conclusion

Both OSCAR and TEAM can be used to assess resuscitation teams in a simulated environment, with the tools correlating well with one another. We envisage a role for both tools - with TEAM giving a quick, global assessment of the team, but OSCAR enabling more detailed breakdown of the assessment, facilitating feedback, and identifying areas of weakness for future training.

SUBMITTER: McKay A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3500685 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Team performance in resuscitation teams: comparison and critique of two recently developed scoring tools.

McKay Anthony A Walker Susanna T ST Brett Stephen J SJ Vincent Charles C Sevdalis Nick N

Resuscitation 20120503 12

<h4>Background and aim</h4>Following high profile errors resulting in patient harm and attracting negative publicity, the healthcare sector has begun to focus on training non-technical teamworking skills as one way of reducing the rate of adverse events. Within the area of resuscitation, two tools have been developed recently aiming to assess these skills - TEAM and OSCAR. The aims of the study reported here were:<h4>Methods</h4>The study consisted of two phases - reliability assessment; and con ...[more]

PMID: 22561464

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSimulation is increasingly being used in postgraduate medical education as an opportunity for competency assessment. However, there is limited direct evidence that supports performance in the simulation lab as a surrogate of workplace-based clinical performance for non-procedural tasks such as resuscitation in the emergency department (ED). We sought to directly compare entrustment scoring of resident performance in the simulation environment to clinical performance in the ED.MethodsThe resuscitation assessment tool (RAT) was derived from the previously implemented and studied Queen's simulation assessment tool (QSAT) via a modified expert review process. The RAT uses an anchored global assessment scale to generate an entrustment score and narrative comments. Emergency medicine (EM) residents were assessed using the RAT on cases in simulation-based examinations and in the ED during resuscitation cases from July 2016 to June 2017. Resident mean entrustment scores were compared using Pearson's correlation coefficient to determine the relationship between entrustment in simulation cases and in the ED. Inductive thematic analysis of written commentary was conducted to compare workplace-based with simulation-based feedback.ResultsThere was a moderate, positive correlation found between mean entrustment scores in the simulated and workplace-based settings, which was statistically significant (r = 0.630, n = 17, p < 0.01). Further, qualitative analysis demonstrated overall management and leadership themes were more common narratives in the workplace, while more specific task-based feedback predominated in the simulation-based assessment. Both workplace-based and simulation-based narratives frequently commented on communication skills.ConclusionsIn this single-center study with a limited sample size, assessment of residents using entrustment scoring in simulation settings was demonstrated to have a moderate positive correlation with assessment of resuscitation competence in the workplace. This study suggests that resuscitation performance in simulation settings may be an indicator of competence in the clinical setting. However, multiple factors contribute to this complicated and imperfect relationship. It is imperative to consider narrative comments in supporting the rationale for numerical entrustment scores in both settings and to include both simulation and workplace-based assessment in high-stakes decisions of progression.

Project description:Many injury severity scoring tools have been developed over the past few decades. These tools include the Injury Severity Score (ISS), New ISS (NISS), Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) and International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-based Injury Severity Score (ICISS). Although many studies have endeavored to determine the ability of these tools to predict the mortality of injured patients, their results have been inconsistent. We conducted a systematic review to summarize the predictive performances of these tools and explore the heterogeneity among studies. We defined a relevant article as any research article that reported the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve as a measure of predictive performance. We conducted an online search using MEDLINE and Embase. We evaluated the quality of each relevant article using a quality assessment questionnaire consisting of 10 questions. The total number of positive answers was reported as the quality score of the study. Meta-analysis was not performed due to the heterogeneity among studies. We identified 64 relevant articles with 157 AUROCs of the tools. The median number of positive answers to the questionnaire was 5, ranging from 2 to 8. Less than half of the relevant studies reported the version of the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) and/or ICD (37.5%). The heterogeneity among the studies could be observed in a broad distribution of crude mortality rates of study data, ranging from 1% to 38%. The NISS was mostly reported to perform better than the ISS when predicting the mortality of blunt trauma patients. The relative performance of the ICSS against the AIS-based tools was inconclusive because of the scarcity of studies. The performance of the ICISS appeared to be unstable because the performance could be altered by the type of formula and survival risk ratios used. In conclusion, high-quality studies were limited. The NISS might perform better in the mortality prediction of blunt injuries than the ISS. Additional studies are required to standardize the derivation of the ICISS and determine the relative performance of the ICISS against the AIS-based tools.

Project description:BackgroundSimulation-based training in medical education has become a common method to develop both technical and non-technical skills in teams. Mental rehearsal (MR) is the cognitive act of simulating a task in our heads to pre-experience tasks imaginatively. It has been used widely to improve individual and collective performance in fields outside healthcare, and offers potential for more efficient training in time-pressured surgical and medical team contexts. This study aimed to review the available literature to determine the impact of MR on team performance and non-technical skills in healthcare.MethodsMEDLINE, Embase, British Educational Index, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycInfo and Cochrane databases were searched for the period 1994-2018. The primary outcome measure was improvement in team performance and non-technical skills. Study quality of RCTs was assessed using the Medical Education Research Quality Instrument. The reported impacts of MR in all included studies were mapped on to the Kirkpatrick framework for evaluation of educational interventions.ResultsEight studies with 268 participants were identified that met the inclusion criteria, of which there were six randomized trials, one prospective pragmatic trial and one qualitative study. Three studies found MR to be effective in improving team non-technical skills. MR practices were varied and often poorly defined. MR benefited team non-technical skills when it was specifically designed to do so, but was not an automatic consequence of technical MR alone. The majority of studies demonstrated benefits of MR for technical performance, but only three showed positive impacts on teamwork. Overall the studies were of low quality and lacked sufficient discriminatory focus to examine impacts on teamwork dynamics.ConclusionMR can improve technical performance, but the benefits on non-technical skills are less clear. Future research should look at longitudinal mixed-method evaluation designs and focus on real clinical teams.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Although nurses must be able to respond quickly and effectively to cardiac arrest, numerous studies have demonstrated poor performance. Simulation is a promising learning tool for resuscitation team training but there are few studies that examine simulation for training defibrillation and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (D-CPR) in teams from the nursing education perspective. The aim of this study was to investigate the extent to which nursing student teams follow the D-CPR-algorithm in a simulated cardiac arrest, and if observing a simulated cardiac arrest scenario and participating in the post simulation debriefing would improve team performance. METHODS: We studied video-recorded simulations of D-CPR performance in 28 nursing student teams. Besides describing the overall performance of D-CPR, we compared D-CPR performance in two groups. Group A (n = 14) performed D-CPR in a simulated cardiac arrest scenario, while Group B (n = 14) performed D-CPR after first observing performance of Group A and participating in the debriefing. We developed a D-CPR checklist to assess team performance. RESULTS: Overall there were large variations in how accurately the nursing student teams performed the specific parts of the D-CPR algorithm. While few teams performed opening the airways and examination of breathing correctly, all teams used a 30:2 compression: ventilation ratio.We found no difference between Group A and Group B in D-CPR performance, either in regard to total points on the check list or to time variables. CONCLUSION: We found that none of the nursing student teams achieved top scores on the D-CPR-checklist. Observing the training of other teams did not increase subsequent performance. We think all this indicates that more time must be assigned for repetitive practice and reflection. Moreover, the most important aspects of D-CPR, such as early defibrillation and hands-off time in relation to shock, must be highlighted in team-training of nursing students.

Dataset Information

Team performance in resuscitation teams: comparison and critique of two recently developed scoring tools.

Background and aim

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Team performance in resuscitation teams: comparison and critique of two recently developed scoring tools.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets