Dataset Information

What non-technical skills competencies are addressed by Australian standards documents for health professionals who work in secondary and tertiary clinical settings? A qualitative comparative analysis.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:At minimum, safe patient outcomes are recognised as resulting from a combination of technical and non-technical skills. Flin and colleagues provide a practical framework of non-technical skills, cognitive, social and interpersonal, that complement technical skills, with categories identified as situational awareness, communication, team working, decision-making, leadership, coping with stress and managing fatigue. The aim of this research was to explore the alignment of categories and elements of non-technical skills with those in the published standards documents of several health professions in Australia. DESIGN:A qualitative comparative analysis using document analysis and deductive coding examined, extracted and interpreted data from competency standards documents focusing on non-technical skills categories and elements. PARTICIPANTS:A purposive sample of 11 health professions competency standards documents required for registration in Australia. FINDINGS:The 11 competency standards documents contained 1616 statements. Although standards documents addressed all non-technical skills categories, there was limited reporting of managing stress and coping with fatigue. Of the 31 elements included in the non-technical skills framework, 22 were not common to all health professions and 3 elements were missing from the standards documents. Additionally, the documents were composed differently with no common taxonomy and multifaceted statements. CONCLUSION:While commonalities identified in the standards documents related to non-technical skills categories are likely to support patient safety, gaps in associated elements may undermine their effectiveness. The notable lack of reference to stress and fatigue requires further attention for health professional well-being in Australia. A shared taxonomy with clear statements may offer the best support for collaborative practice and positive patient outcomes. Competency standards need to be flexible to respond to the emerging demands of current healthcare practice along with consumer and health service needs.

SUBMITTER: Peddle M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6078249 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

What non-technical skills competencies are addressed by Australian standards documents for health professionals who work in secondary and tertiary clinical settings? A qualitative comparative analysis.

Peddle Monica M Bearman Margaret M Radomski Natalie N Mckenna Lisa L Nestel Debra D

BMJ open 20180805 8

<h4>Objectives</h4>At minimum, safe patient outcomes are recognised as resulting from a combination of technical and non-technical skills. Flin and colleagues provide a practical framework of non-technical skills, cognitive, social and interpersonal, that complement technical skills, with categories identified as <i>situational awareness, communication, team working, decision-making, leadership, coping with stress</i> and <i>managing fatigue</i>. The aim of this research was to explore the align ...[more]

PMID: 30082346

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionHealthcare data analytics is a methodological approach to the systematic analysis of health data, and it provides opportunities for healthcare professionals to improve health system management, patient engagement, budgeting, planning and performing evidence-based decision-making. Literature suggests that certain skills and/or competencies for health professionals working with big data in health care would be required. A review of the skills and competencies in health data analytics required by health professionals is needed to support the development or re-engineering of curriculum for health professionals to ensure they develop the abilities to make evidence-based decisions that ultimately can lead to the effective and efficient functioning of a healthcare system.MethodsUsing Arksey and O'Malley's framework, this study will review literature published in English from January 2012 to December 2022. The database search includes Academic Search Complete, CINAHL, and MEDLINE via EBSCOhost, PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, and Taylor and Francis. The reference lists of key studies will be searched to identify additional appropriate studies to include. The review will be conducted using an inclusion and exclusion criteria. Iterative processes will be involved at the various stages of search strategy piloting, screening and data extraction. Articles will be reviewed through a two-step process (title and abstract, and full-text review) by at least two reviewers. Data will be described quantitatively and/or qualitatively and presented in diagrams and tables.Ethics and disseminationEthical clearance has been received, and strict protocol measures will be followed to ensure the data reported is of quality and relevant to the review purpose. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed scientific journal, presentation at national and/or international conferences, and other platforms such as social media (eg, LinkedIn, Twitter), and relevant stakeholders.

Project description:ObjectiveAnalyze the content of documents used to guide mandatory fortification programs for cereal grains.MethodsLegislation, standards, and monitoring documents, which are used to mandate, provide specifications for, and confirm fortification, respectively, were collected from countries with mandatory wheat flour (n=80), maize flour (n=11), and/or rice (n=6) fortification as of January 31, 2015, yielding 97 possible country-grain combinations (e.g., Philippines-wheat flour, Philippines-rice) for the analysis. After excluding countries with limited or no documentation, 72 reviews were completed, representing 84 country-grain combinations. Based on best practices, a criteria checklist was created with 44 items that should be included in fortification documents. Two reviewers independently scored each available document set for a given country and food vehicle (a country-grain combination) using the checklist, and then reached consensus on the scoring. We calculated the percentage of country-grain combinations containing each checklist item and examined differences in scores by grain, region, and income level.ResultsOf the 72 country-grain combinations, the majority of documentation came from countries in the Americas (46%) and Africa (32%), and most were from upper and lower middle-income countries (73%). The majority of country-grain combinations had documentation stating the food vehicle(s) to be fortified (97%) and the micronutrients (e.g., iron) (100%), fortificants (e.g., ferrous fumarate) (88%), and fortification levels required (96%). Most (78%) stated that labeling is required to indicate a product is fortified. Many country-grain combinations described systems for external (64%) monitoring, and stated that industry is required to follow quality assurance/quality control (64%), though detailed protocols (33%) and roles and responsibilities (45%) were frequently not described.ConclusionsMost country-grain combinations have systems in place for internal, external, and import monitoring. However, documentation of other important items that would influence product compliance to national standard, such as roles and responsibilities between agencies, the cost of regulating fortification, and enforcement strategies, are often lacking. Countries with existing mandatory fortification can improve upon these items in revisions to their documentation while countries that are beginning fortification can use the checklist to assist in developing new policies and programs.

Project description:BackgroundNon-technical skills (NTS) are essential for safe surgical practice as they impact workflow and patient outcomes. Observational tools to measure operating room (OR) teams' NTS have been introduced. However, there are none that account for the specific teamwork challenges introduced by robotic-assisted surgery (RAS). We set out to develop and content-validate a tool to assess multidisciplinary NTS in RAS.MethodologyStepwise, multi-method procedure. Observations in different surgical departments and a scoping literature review were first used to compile a set of RAS-specific teamwork behaviours. This list was refined and expert validated using a Delphi consensus approach consisting of qualitative interviews and a quantitative survey. Then, RAS-specific behaviours were merged with a well-established assessment tool on OR teamwork (NOTECHS II). Finally, the new tool-RAS-NOTECHS-was applied in standardized observations of real-world procedures to test its reliability (inter-rater agreement via intra-class correlations).ResultsOur scoping review revealed 5242 articles, of which 21 were included based on pre-established inclusion criteria. We elicited 16 RAS-specific behaviours from the literature base. These were synthesized with further 18 behavioural markers (obtained from 12 OR-observations) into a list of 26 behavioural markers. This list was reviewed by seven RAS experts and condensed to 15 expert-validated RAS-specific behavioural markers which were then merged into NOTECHS II. For five observations of urologic RAS procedures (duration: 13 h and 41 min), inter-rater agreement for identification of behavioural markers was strong. Agreement of RAS-NOTECHS scores indicated moderate to strong agreement.ConclusionsRAS-NOTECHS is the first observational tool for multidisciplinary NTS in RAS. In preliminary application, it has been shown to be reliable. Since RAS is rapidly increasing and challenges for effective and safe teamwork remain at the forefront of quality and safety of surgical care, RAS-NOTECHS may contribute to training and improvement efforts in technology-facilitated surgeries.

Project description:BackgroundDigitalization is not fully implemented in clinical practice, and several factors have been identified as possible barriers, including the competencies of health care professionals. However, no summary of the available evidence has been provided to date to depict digital health competencies that have been investigated among health care professionals, the tools used in assessing such competencies, and the effective interventions to improve them.ObjectiveThis review aims to summarize digital health competencies investigated to date and the tools used to assess them among health care professionals.MethodsA systematic review based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist was performed. The MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, and Scopus databases were accessed up to September 4, 2021. Studies assessing digital health competencies with quantitative designs, targeting health care professionals, and written in English were included. The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute tools.ResultsA total of 26 studies, published from 1999 to 2021, met the inclusion criteria, and the majority were cross sectional in design, while only 2 were experimental study designs. Most studies were assessed with moderate to low methodological quality; 4 categories and 9 subcategories of investigated digital health competencies have been identified. The most investigated category was "Self-rated competencies," followed by "Psychological and emotional aspects toward digital technologies," "Use of digital technologies," and "Knowledge about digital technologies." In 35% (9/26) of the studies, a previously validated tool was used to measure the competencies assessed, while others developed ad hoc questionnaires.ConclusionsMainly descriptive studies with issues regarding methodology quality have been produced to date investigating 4 main categories of digital health competencies mostly with nonvalidated tools. Competencies investigated might be considered while designing curricula for undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing education processes, whereas the methodological lacks detected might be addressed with future research. There is a need to expand research on psychological and emotional elements and the ability to use digital technology to self-learn and teach others.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42021282775; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=282775.

Dataset Information

What non-technical skills competencies are addressed by Australian standards documents for health professionals who work in secondary and tertiary clinical settings? A qualitative comparative analysis.

Publications

What non-technical skills competencies are addressed by Australian standards documents for health professionals who work in secondary and tertiary clinical settings? A qualitative comparative analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets