Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30736821›Full record

ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2019

Rating the quality of teamwork-a comparison of novice and expert ratings using the Team Emergency Assessment Measure (TEAM) in simulated emergencies.

Julia Freytag, Fabian Stroben, Wolf E Hautz, Stefan K Schauber, Juliane E Kämmer

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Julia FreytagSimulated Patients Program, Office of the Vice Dean for Teaching and Learning, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Fabian StrobenLernzentrum, Office of the Vice Dean for Teaching and Learning, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Wolf E HautzDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 4, 3010, Bern, Switzerland.
Stefan K SchauberCentre for Health Sciences Education, University of Oslo, Gaustadalléen 30, 0373, Oslo, Norway.
Juliane E KämmerAG Progress Test Medizin, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany. kaemmer@mpib-berlin.mpg.de.

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung 01PL16036
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTraining in teamwork behaviour improves technical resuscitation performance. However, its effect on patient outcome is less clear, partly because teamwork behaviour is difficult to measure. Furthermore, it is unknown who should evaluate it. In clinical practice, experts are obliged to participate in resuscitation efforts and are thus unavailable to assess teamwork quality. Consequently, we sought to determine if raters with little clinical experience and experts provide comparable evaluations of teamwork behaviour.

methodsNovice and expert raters judged teamwork behaviour during 6 emergency medicine simulations using the Teamwork Emergency Assessment Measure (TEAM). Ratings of both groups were analysed descriptively and compared with U and t tests. We used a mixed effects model to identify the proportion of variance in TEAM scores attributable to rater status and other sources.

resultsTwelve raters evaluated 7 teams rotating through 6 cases, for a total of 84 observations. We found no significant difference between expert and novice ratings for 7 of the 11 items of the TEAM or in the sums of all item scores. Novices rated teamwork behaviour higher on 4 items and overall. Rater status accounted for 11.1% of the total variance in scores.

conclusionsExperts' and novices' ratings were similarly distributed, implying that raters with limited experience can provide reliable data on teamwork behaviour. Novices show a consistent, but slightly more lenient rating behaviour. Clinical studies and real-life teams may thus employ novices using a structured observational tool such as TEAM to inform their performance review and improvement.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceEmergency MedicinePatient Care TeamSimulation TrainingAdultEmergenciesFaculty, MedicalFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedStudents, MedicalYoung AdultAssessmentEmergencyExpert raterNon-technical skillsNovice raterResuscitationSimulationTeamwork

Identifiers

PMID30736821
PMCPMC6368771

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.