Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38030981›Full record

SynthesisBMC emergency medicine2023

Evaluation of video review tools for assessing non-technical skills in emergency department resuscitation teams: a systematic review.

Emily G Alexander, Fraser Denny, Malcom Wg Gordon, Cieran McKiernan, David J Lowe

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC emergency medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
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.

Emily G AlexanderUniversity of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Fraser DennyUniversity of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Malcom Wg GordonUniversity of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Cieran McKiernanUniversity of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
David J LoweUniversity of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK. David.Lowe@ggc.scot.nhs.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and importanceUse of video review in medicine is established in contexts such as surgery. Although not widely used in the emergency department (ED), some centres use it to evaluate non-technical skills (NTS) to support teaching and quality improvement.

objectiveThere is no consensus on assessment of NTS using video review in the ED and the purpose of this review was to identify tools used in this context. DESIGN, SETTING AND

participantsStudies were identified using Embase, Medline, CINAHL and Google Scholar. Inclusion criterion for the review was NTS of resuscitation teams working within the ED were assessed using video review. A systematic search method was used, and results were synthesised after search criteria was checked by two independent reviewers. Authors settled on the same 9 studies eligible for inclusion. OUTCOME MEASURES AND ANALYSIS: Reliability and validity of tools identified for use in this context. Due to the heterogeneity of studies, no meta-analysis occurred. MAIN

resultsThere are 9 studies included in the review. The review was registered with PROSPERO (Ref No: CRD42022306129). Four unique tools were identified - 6 studies used T-NOTECHS, 1 used TTCA-24, 1 used CALM and 1 used the Communication tool. T-NOTECHS is validated in the literature for use in this context.

conclusionT-NOTECHS is the tool of choice for assessing ED teams in this context.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetencePatient Care TeamCommunicationEmergency Service, HospitalHumansReproducibility of ResultsEmergency departmentNon-technical skillsResuscitation teamT-NOTECHSTraumaVideo review

Identifiers

PMID38030981
PMCPMC10687788

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.