ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Identifying and prioritising technical and non-technical skills for simulation-based curriculum in anaesthesiology: a Delphi-based needs assessment.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo identify and prioritise technical and non-technical procedures that should be integrated into a simulation-based training curriculum in anaesthesiology using the Delphi method. STUDY
designA needs assessment using a three-round Delphi process was completed among leaders in anaesthesiologists across medical colleges in our country. The responders were mostly alumni of our institution and their colleagues. Delphi round 1 identified technical and non-technical skills after brainstorming sessions with experts in the field. Round 2 involved collecting data through questionnaires about the technical skills best suited for simulation-based training and topics of importance using Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation-Needs Assessment Formula (CAMES NAF) score. Round 3 included final elimination and reprioritisation. The topics were narrowed down by steering research members based on data saturation in the open-ended questions (qualitative), as well as statistical data (CAMES-NAF) for the quantitative questions.
resultsIn Delphi round 1, we identified 22 technical skills, 10 non-technical skills and 21 scenarios. Response rates in the Delphi round 2 averaged to 85.5% and responses were prioritised using CAMES NAF score. Open-ended questions reached data saturation for non-technical skills and scenarios. In round 3, we were able to narrow it down to 10 technical skills, 5 non-technical skills and 8 scenarios after elimination and reprioritisation.
conclusionsWe identified and prioritised 8 scenarios, 10 technical skills and 5 non-technical skills in anaesthesiology that are suitable for simulation and may be used as a guide for developing simulation-based curriculum in anaesthesiology.
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.