SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Non-technical skills in acute care: an umbrella review of assessment, training, and implications for emergency department practice.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Non-technical skills (NTS), including communication, teamwork, leadership, situational awareness, and decision-making, are widely recognized as essential for safe and effective performance in high-risk healthcare environments. Although extensive research has examined NTS training and assessment across healthcare settings, the evidence base is fragmented, and its applicability to emergency department (ED) practice remains unclear. This umbrella review synthesizes review-level evidence on NTS assessment tools and training approaches in healthcare and examines their implications for emergency department practice. Methods: A systematic search was conducted across PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and EBSCOhost (CINAHL, APA PsycInfo, and Academic Search Complete) from inception to February 2025. Eligible studies included systematic, scoping, and narrative reviews examining the assessment, training, or implementation of NTS among healthcare professionals. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251008161). Data were extracted and synthesized using a structured narrative synthesis, with explicit consideration of relevance and transferability to emergency department contexts. Results: A total of 2,229 records were identified, and 17 reviews published between 2012 and 2024 were included, with 88% originating from high-income countries. Key themes encompassed NTS conceptual frameworks, methodological approaches, assessment instruments, and outcome measures. Widely reported frameworks and tools included Crisis Resource Management, Trauma Non-Technical Skills (T-NOTECHS), and the Team Emergency Assessment Measure (TEAM). Evidence most consistently indicated improvements in team behaviors and process performance, predominantly in simulation-based or observational settings. No meta-analyses were identified. Conclusions: This umbrella review synthesizes review-level evidence on NTS assessment and training across healthcare and highlights considerations for application in emergency department practice. The evidence most consistently supports improvements in team behaviors and process performance, largely in simulation-based or observational settings, while direct evidence for effects on patient outcomes in routine ED care remains limited. Future research should prioritize multicentre, cross-cultural, and longitudinal designs with harmonized outcomes to better evaluate implementation, effectiveness, and contextual transferability to emergency department 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.