ArticleThe western journal of emergency medicine2024
Assessing Team Performance: A Mixed-Methods Analysis Using Interprofessional
Article in The western journal of emergency medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of the observer role vs. active participant role in interprofessional simulation-based education for affective skills: a randomized-controlled trial.BMC medical education · 2025Trial
- Conceptualising and assessing interdependent clinical performances: Early insights from emergency medicine and paediatric faculty.Medical education · 2026Article
- Adapting the TeamSTEPPS team performance observation tool for dyadic interprofessional VR simulations (vTPOT): a multi-step validation study.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2026Article
- Proximity to Practice: The Role of Technology in the Next Era of Assessment.Perspectives on medical education · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Optimizing the performance of emergency department (ED) teams impacts patient care, but the utility of current, team-based performance assessment tools to comprehensively measure this impact is underexplored. In this study we aimed to 1) evaluate ED team performance using current team-based assessment tools during an interprofessional in situ simulation and 2) identify characteristics of effective ED teams. Methods: This mixed-methods study employed case study methodology based on a constructivist paradigm. Sixty-three eligible nurses, technicians, pharmacists, and postgraduate year 2-4 emergency medicine residents at a tertiary academic ED participated in a 10-minute in situ simulation of a critically ill patient. Participants self-rated performance using the Results: Eighteen team-based simulations took place between January-April 2021. Raters' scores were on the upper end of the tools for the TPOT 2.0 (R1 4.90, SD 0.17; R2 4.53, SD 0.27, IRR [inter-rater reliability] 0.47), TEAM (R1 3.89, SD 0.19; R2 3.58, SD 0.39, IRR 0.73), and Ottawa GRS (R1 6.6, SD 0.56; R2 6.2, SD 0.54, IRR 0.68). We identified six themes from our interview data: team member entrustment; interdependent energy; leadership tone; optimal communication; strategic staffing; and simulation empowering team performance. Conclusion: Current team performance assessment tools insufficiently discriminate among high performing teams in the ED. Emergency department-specific assessments that capture features of entrustability, interdependent energy, and leadership tone may offer a more comprehensive way to assess an individual's contribution to a team's performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.