Trial reportBMC medical education2025
Use of an observer tool to enhance learning of anaesthesia resident's non-technical skills during high-fidelity simulation: a randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validating high-fidelity simulation for assessing procedural skills in nursing education: a kane framework approach in Ghana.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Resuscitation Team Members 'Experiences of Teamwork: A Qualitative Study.Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of an observer tool (OT) has been shown to improve learning of technical skills through observation in simulation. The objective was to assess the impact of a non-technical OT on anaesthesia residents' learning of non-technical skills (NTS) during simulation.
methodsAfter consent, residents were randomised into 2 groups: OT+ (with an OT based on NTS to be systematically completed during observation of others) and OT- (without OT). Both groups observed a high-fidelity simulation of crisis management (with or without OT), then were asked to perform actively another simulation. The primary outcome was NTS performance, assessed by an evaluator using the Anaesthesia Non-Technical Skills score (ANTS score out of 16) on video recording. Secondary outcomes were results of score items, satisfaction, team performance, and professional impact.
resultsNo significant difference was found between OT + group (n = 33) and OT- group (n = 30) for the ANTS score (OT + 12 [9.5-12.5], OT- 10.5 [8.75-12]/16 (p = 0.13)). Among sub-items of the ANTS score, decision-making was significantly better in the OT + group (3 [2-3] versus 2 [2-3], p = 0.01). Satisfaction, team performance and perception of professional impact were not significantly different between groups.
conclusionsThis study showed no significant difference in learning of observational anaesthesia resident's NTS whether or not they were provided a non-technical OT during crisis management simulation. Decision-making was better with an OT. Further work is necessary to define the place of OT in observer-based learning.
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.