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:IntroductionVacuum extraction is generally considered an operator-dependent task, with most attention directed toward the obstetrician's technical abilities (1-3). Little is known about the effect of the team and non-technical skills on clinical outcomes in vacuum-assisted delivery. This study aimed to investigate whether the non-technical skills of obstetricians were correlated with their level of clinical performance via the analysis of video recordings of teams conducting actual vacuum extractions.MethodsWe installed between two or three video cameras in each delivery room at Aarhus University Hospital and Horsens Regional Hospital and obtained 60 videos of teams managing vacuum extraction. Appropriate consent was obtained. Two raters carefully reviewed the videos and assessed the teams' non-technical skills using the Assessment of Obstetric Team Performance (AOTP) checklist, rating all items on a Likert scale score from 1 to 5 (1 = poor; 3 = average; and 5 = excellent). This resulted in a total score ranging from 18 to 90. Two different raters independently assessed the teams' clinical performance (adherence to clinical guidelines) using the TeamOBS-Vacuum-Assisted Delivery (VAD) checklist, rating each item (0 = not done, 1 = done incorrectly; and 2 = done correctly). This resulted in a total score with the following ranges (low clinical performance: 0-59; average: 60-84; and high: 85-100). Interrater agreement was analyzed using intraclass correlation (ICC), and the risk of high or low clinical performance was analyzed on a logit scale to meet the assumption of normality.ResultsTeams that received excellent non-technical scores had an 81% probability of achieving high clinical performance, whereas this probability was only 12% among teams with average non-technical scores (p < 0.001). Teams with a high clinical performance often had excellent behavior in the non-technical items of "team interaction," "anticipation," "avoidance fixation," and "focused communication." Teams with a low or average clinical performance often neglected to consider analgesia, had delayed abandonment of the attempted vaginal delivery and insufficient use of appropriate fetal monitoring. Interrater reliability was high for both rater-teams, with an ICC for the non-technical skills of 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71-0.88) and 0.84 for the clinical performance (95% CI: 0.74-0.90).ConclusionAlthough assisted vaginal delivery by vacuum extraction is generally considered to be an operator-dependent task, our findings suggest that teamwork and effective team interaction play crucial roles in achieving high clinical performance. Teamwork helped the consultant anticipate the next step, avoid fixation, ensure adequate analgesia, and maintain thorough fetal monitoring during delivery.

Project description:ObjectivesThis qualitative study explores the characteristics of a specialised military medical rapid response team (MRRT), the surgical resuscitation team (SRT). Despite mixed evidence of efficacy, civilian MRRTs are widely employed, with significant variation in structure and function. Recent increased use of these teams to mitigate patient risk in challenging healthcare scenarios, such as global pandemics, mass casualty events and resource-constrained health systems, mandates a reconceptualisation of how civilian MRRTs are created, trained and used. Here, we study the core functions and foundational underpinnings of SRTs and discuss how civilian MRRTs might learn from their military counterparts.DesignSemistructured interview-based study using Descriptive Qualitative Research methodology and Thematic Analysis.SettingRemote audio interviews conducted via Zoom.ParticipantsParticipants included 15 members of the United States Special Operations Command SRTs, representing all medical specialties of the SRT as well as operational planners.ResultsAdaptability was identified as a core function of SRTs and informed by four foundational underpinnings: mission variability, shared values and principles, interpersonal and organisational trust and highly effective teaming. Our findings provide three important insights for civilian MRRTs: (1) team member roles should not be defined by silos of professional specialisation, (2) trust is a key factor in the teaming process and (3) team principles and values result in and are reinforced by organisational trust.ConclusionThis study offers the first in-depth investigation of a unique military MRRT. Important insights that may offer benefit to civilian MRRT practices include enabling the breakdown of traditional division of labour, allowing for and promoting deep interpersonal and professional familiarity, and facilitating a cycle of positive reinforcement between teams and organisations. Future investigation of small team limitations, comparability to civilian MRRTs, and the team relationship to the larger organisation are needed to better understand how these teams function in a healthcare system and translate to civilian practice.

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.

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