Cargando…

A study of validity and usability evidence for non-technical skills assessment tools in simulated adult resuscitation scenarios

BACKGROUND: Non-technical skills (NTS) assessment tools are widely used to provide formative and summative assessment for healthcare professionals and there are now many of them. This study has examined three different tools designed for similar settings and gathered evidence to test their validity...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Higham, Helen, Greig, Paul, Crabtree, Nick, Hadjipavlou, George, Young, Duncan, Vincent, Charles
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10007667/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36906567
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04108-4
_version_ 1784905579691507712
author Higham, Helen
Greig, Paul
Crabtree, Nick
Hadjipavlou, George
Young, Duncan
Vincent, Charles
author_facet Higham, Helen
Greig, Paul
Crabtree, Nick
Hadjipavlou, George
Young, Duncan
Vincent, Charles
author_sort Higham, Helen
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Non-technical skills (NTS) assessment tools are widely used to provide formative and summative assessment for healthcare professionals and there are now many of them. This study has examined three different tools designed for similar settings and gathered evidence to test their validity and usability. METHODS: Three NTS assessment tools designed for use in the UK were used by three experienced faculty to review standardized videos of simulated cardiac arrest scenarios: ANTS (Anesthetists’ Non-Technical Skills), Oxford NOTECHS (Oxford NOn-TECHnical Skills) and OSCAR (Observational Skill based Clinical Assessment tool for Resuscitation). Internal consistency, interrater reliability and quantitative and qualitative analysis of usability were analyzed for each tool. RESULTS: Internal consistency and interrater reliability (IRR) varied considerably for the three tools across NTS categories and elements. Intraclass correlation scores of three expert raters ranged from poor (task management in ANTS [0.26] and situation awareness (SA) in Oxford NOTECHS [0.34]) to very good (problem solving in Oxford NOTECHS [0.81] and cooperation [0.84] and SA [0.87] in OSCAR). Furthermore, different statistical tests of IRR produced different results for each tool. Quantitative and qualitative examination of usability also revealed challenges in using each tool. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of standardization of NTS assessment tools and training in their use is unhelpful for healthcare educators and students. Educators require ongoing support in the use of NTS assessment tools for the evaluation of individual healthcare professionals or healthcare teams. Summative or high-stakes examinations using NTS assessment tools should be undertaken with at least two assessors to provide consensus scoring. In light of the renewed focus on simulation as an educational tool to support and enhance training recovery in the aftermath of COVID-19, it is even more important that assessment of these vital skills is standardized, simplified and supported with adequate training. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-023-04108-4.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10007667
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-100076672023-03-12 A study of validity and usability evidence for non-technical skills assessment tools in simulated adult resuscitation scenarios Higham, Helen Greig, Paul Crabtree, Nick Hadjipavlou, George Young, Duncan Vincent, Charles BMC Med Educ Research BACKGROUND: Non-technical skills (NTS) assessment tools are widely used to provide formative and summative assessment for healthcare professionals and there are now many of them. This study has examined three different tools designed for similar settings and gathered evidence to test their validity and usability. METHODS: Three NTS assessment tools designed for use in the UK were used by three experienced faculty to review standardized videos of simulated cardiac arrest scenarios: ANTS (Anesthetists’ Non-Technical Skills), Oxford NOTECHS (Oxford NOn-TECHnical Skills) and OSCAR (Observational Skill based Clinical Assessment tool for Resuscitation). Internal consistency, interrater reliability and quantitative and qualitative analysis of usability were analyzed for each tool. RESULTS: Internal consistency and interrater reliability (IRR) varied considerably for the three tools across NTS categories and elements. Intraclass correlation scores of three expert raters ranged from poor (task management in ANTS [0.26] and situation awareness (SA) in Oxford NOTECHS [0.34]) to very good (problem solving in Oxford NOTECHS [0.81] and cooperation [0.84] and SA [0.87] in OSCAR). Furthermore, different statistical tests of IRR produced different results for each tool. Quantitative and qualitative examination of usability also revealed challenges in using each tool. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of standardization of NTS assessment tools and training in their use is unhelpful for healthcare educators and students. Educators require ongoing support in the use of NTS assessment tools for the evaluation of individual healthcare professionals or healthcare teams. Summative or high-stakes examinations using NTS assessment tools should be undertaken with at least two assessors to provide consensus scoring. In light of the renewed focus on simulation as an educational tool to support and enhance training recovery in the aftermath of COVID-19, it is even more important that assessment of these vital skills is standardized, simplified and supported with adequate training. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-023-04108-4. BioMed Central 2023-03-11 /pmc/articles/PMC10007667/ /pubmed/36906567 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04108-4 Text en © Crown 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Higham, Helen
Greig, Paul
Crabtree, Nick
Hadjipavlou, George
Young, Duncan
Vincent, Charles
A study of validity and usability evidence for non-technical skills assessment tools in simulated adult resuscitation scenarios
title A study of validity and usability evidence for non-technical skills assessment tools in simulated adult resuscitation scenarios
title_full A study of validity and usability evidence for non-technical skills assessment tools in simulated adult resuscitation scenarios
title_fullStr A study of validity and usability evidence for non-technical skills assessment tools in simulated adult resuscitation scenarios
title_full_unstemmed A study of validity and usability evidence for non-technical skills assessment tools in simulated adult resuscitation scenarios
title_short A study of validity and usability evidence for non-technical skills assessment tools in simulated adult resuscitation scenarios
title_sort study of validity and usability evidence for non-technical skills assessment tools in simulated adult resuscitation scenarios
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10007667/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36906567
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04108-4
work_keys_str_mv AT highamhelen astudyofvalidityandusabilityevidencefornontechnicalskillsassessmenttoolsinsimulatedadultresuscitationscenarios
AT greigpaul astudyofvalidityandusabilityevidencefornontechnicalskillsassessmenttoolsinsimulatedadultresuscitationscenarios
AT crabtreenick astudyofvalidityandusabilityevidencefornontechnicalskillsassessmenttoolsinsimulatedadultresuscitationscenarios
AT hadjipavlougeorge astudyofvalidityandusabilityevidencefornontechnicalskillsassessmenttoolsinsimulatedadultresuscitationscenarios
AT youngduncan astudyofvalidityandusabilityevidencefornontechnicalskillsassessmenttoolsinsimulatedadultresuscitationscenarios
AT vincentcharles astudyofvalidityandusabilityevidencefornontechnicalskillsassessmenttoolsinsimulatedadultresuscitationscenarios
AT highamhelen studyofvalidityandusabilityevidencefornontechnicalskillsassessmenttoolsinsimulatedadultresuscitationscenarios
AT greigpaul studyofvalidityandusabilityevidencefornontechnicalskillsassessmenttoolsinsimulatedadultresuscitationscenarios
AT crabtreenick studyofvalidityandusabilityevidencefornontechnicalskillsassessmenttoolsinsimulatedadultresuscitationscenarios
AT hadjipavlougeorge studyofvalidityandusabilityevidencefornontechnicalskillsassessmenttoolsinsimulatedadultresuscitationscenarios
AT youngduncan studyofvalidityandusabilityevidencefornontechnicalskillsassessmenttoolsinsimulatedadultresuscitationscenarios
AT vincentcharles studyofvalidityandusabilityevidencefornontechnicalskillsassessmenttoolsinsimulatedadultresuscitationscenarios