Teamwork evaluation during emergency medicine residents' high-fidelity simulation.

Francesca Innocenti, Elena Angeli, Andrea Alesi, Margherita Scorpiniti, Riccardo Pini
Author Information
  1. Francesca Innocenti: High-Dependency Unit, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Firenze, Italy.
  2. Elena Angeli: High-Dependency Unit, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Firenze, Italy.
  3. Andrea Alesi: High-Dependency Unit, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Firenze, Italy.
  4. Margherita Scorpiniti: High-Dependency Unit, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Firenze, Italy.
  5. Riccardo Pini: High-Dependency Unit, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Firenze, Italy.

Abstract

Background: Teamwork training has been included in several emergency medicine (EM) curricula; the aim of this study was to compare different scales' performance in teamwork evaluation during simulation for EM residents.
Methods: In the period October 2013-June 2014, we performed bimonthly high-fidelity simulation sessions, with novice (I-III year, group 1 (G1)) and senior (IV-V year, group 2 (G2)) EM residents; scenarios were designed to simulate management of critical patients. Videos were assessed by three independent raters with the following scales: Emergency Team Dynamics (ETD), Clinical Teamwork Scale (CTS) and Team Emergency Assessment Measure (TEAM). In the period March-June, after each scenario, participants completed the CTS and ETD.
Results: The analysis based on 18 sessions showed good internal consistency and good to fair inter-rater reliability for the three scales (TEAM, CTS, ETD: Cronbach's α 0.954, 0.954, 0.921; Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC), 0.921, 0.917, 0.608). Single CTS items achieved highly significant ICC results, with 12 of the total 13 comparisons achieving ICC results ≥0.70; a similar result was confirmed for 4 of the total 11 TEAM items and 1 of the 8 total ETD items. Spearman's r was 0.585 between ETD and CTS, 0.694 between ETD and TEAM, and 0.634 between TEAM and CTS (scales converted to percentages, all p<0.0001). Participants gave themselves a better evaluation compared with external raters (CTS: 101±9 vs 90±9; ETD: 25±3 vs 20±5, all p<0.0001).
Conclusions: All examined scales demonstrated good internal consistency, with a slightly better inter-rater reliability for CTS compared with the other tools.

Keywords

References

  1. Ann Emerg Med. 2008 Mar;51(3):251-61, 261.e1 [PMID: 17933430]
  2. Ann Emerg Med. 2007 Apr;49(4):495-504, 504.e1-11 [PMID: 17161502]
  3. Simul Healthc. 2007 Spring;2(1):4-10 [PMID: 19088602]
  4. Women Birth. 2012 Jun;25(2):86-97 [PMID: 21388902]
  5. JAMA. 2006 Sep 6;296(9):1094-102 [PMID: 16954489]
  6. Emerg Med J. 2007 Sep;24(9):630-3 [PMID: 17711938]
  7. Nurse Educ Today. 2014 May;34(5):691-6 [PMID: 24183634]
  8. Emerg Med Australas. 2012 Feb;24(1):7-13 [PMID: 22313554]
  9. Simul Healthc. 2008 Winter;3(4):217-23 [PMID: 19088666]
  10. Ann Emerg Med. 2009 Nov;54(5):684-91 [PMID: 19394113]
  11. CJEM. 2008 Sep;10(5):421-7 [PMID: 18826729]
  12. Resuscitation. 1999 Sep;42(1):27-45 [PMID: 10524729]
  13. Resuscitation. 2012 Dec;83(12):1478-83 [PMID: 22561464]
  14. J Emerg Med. 2011 Dec;41(6):679-85 [PMID: 21835571]
  15. Resuscitation. 2010 Apr;81(4):446-52 [PMID: 20117874]
  16. Crit Care Med. 2006 Aug;34(8):2167-74 [PMID: 16775567]
  17. BMC Nurs. 2012 Sep 28;11(1):18 [PMID: 23020906]
  18. Int Emerg Nurs. 2010 Jul;18(3):127-37 [PMID: 20542238]
  19. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004 Oct;13 Suppl 1:i80-4 [PMID: 15465960]
  20. Resuscitation. 2014 Jan;85(1):31-3 [PMID: 24036193]
  21. Acad Emerg Med. 2012 May;19(5):608-12 [PMID: 22594369]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.00CTSETDTEAMTeamworkEMevaluationsimulationgoodscalesICCitemstotalemergencymedicineperformanceresidentsperiodhigh-fidelitysessionsyeargroup1threeratersEmergencyTeaminternalconsistencyinter-raterreliabilityETD:954921resultsp<00001bettercomparedvsBackground:trainingincludedseveralcurriculaaimstudycomparedifferentscales'teamworkMethods:October2013-June2014performedbimonthlynoviceI-IIIG1seniorIV-V2G2scenariosdesignedsimulatemanagementcriticalpatientsVideosassessedindependentfollowingscales:DynamicsClinicalScaleAssessmentMeasureMarch-JunescenarioparticipantscompletedResults:analysisbased18showedfairCronbach'sαIntraclassCorrelationCoefficients917608Singleachievedhighlysignificant1213comparisonsachieving≥070similarresultconfirmed4118Spearman'sr585694634convertedpercentagesParticipantsgaveexternalCTS:101±990±925±320±5Conclusions:examineddemonstratedslightlytoolsresidents'High-FidelitySimulationSelf-assessment

Similar Articles

Cited By