Observational studyBMC medical education2026
The role of in situ simulations in the assessment of pediatric anesthesiologists' non-technical skills.
Observational study in BMC medical education, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNon-technical skills (NTS) are essential for the safe delivery of anesthesia care, and in situ simulation offers a realistic and immersive environment for developing these competencies. Evidence on whether learning achieved in simulation transfers to real clinical performance particularly among experienced clinicians remains limited. This study aimed to assess pediatric anesthesiologists’ non-technical skills using in situ simulation and to examine the extent to which performance observed during simulation reflects baseline performance in the operating room.
methodsThis observational pre–post study included eight pediatric anesthesiologists who participated in eight in situ team simulation sessions. Real-case observations were conducted before (n = 32) and after (n = 32) the simulation intervention. Simulation video recordings were used to compare anesthesiologists’ baseline NTS performance in simulated scenarios with their pre-intervention performance in real clinical settings. NTS were assessed using the Turkish version of the ANTSdk scale (ANTSdkt). Data were analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVA for pre–post comparisons. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize ANTSdkt scores observed during simulation and real clinical cases. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC).
resultsNo statistically significant improvement was observed in any NTS category or in overall scores following the in-situ simulation training (p > 0.05). Descriptive analysis showed that NTS performance remained stable across both clinical and simulated environments, with an overall score mean score of 4.72 (± 1.27) before the intervention and 5.18 (± 0.88) during the simulation sessions. Inter-rater reliability for simulated cases was good (ICC = 0.79).
conclusionsThis study focused on the assessment of pediatric anesthesiologists’ non-technical skills rather than their longitudinal development. Accordingly, a single in-situ simulation session was not expected to result in measurable improvement in non-technical skills, likely reflecting the high baseline performance of experienced clinicians, while allowing observation of skills that appeared consistent across simulated and real clinical settings. The observed alignment between non-technical skills demonstrated during simulation and those exhibited in routine clinical practice suggests that in-situ simulation provides a realistic and informative context for observing clinician behavior in authentic settings.
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.