The Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
The Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
BMJ Qual Saf. 2014 Dec;23(12):1031-9. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002457. Epub 2014 Aug 25.
Behavioural marker systems are advocated as a method for providing accurate assessments, directing feedback and determining the impact of teamwork improvement initiatives. The present article reports on the state of quality surrounding their use in healthcare and discusses the implications of these findings for future research, development and application. In doing so, this article provides a practical resource where marker systems can be selected and evaluated based on their strengths and limitations.
Four research questions framed this review: what are the attributes of behavioural marker systems? What evidence of reliability and validity exists? What skills and expertise are required for their use? How have they been applied to investigate the relationship between teamwork and other constructs?
Behavioural markers systems are generally designed for specific work domains or tasks. They often cover similar content with inconsistent terminology, which complicates the comparison of research findings across clinical domains. Although several approaches were used to establish the reliability and validity of marker systems, the marker system literature, as a whole, requires more robust reliability and validity evidence. The impact of rater training on rater proficiency was mixed, but evidence suggests that improvements can be made over time.
A consensus of definitions for teamwork constructs must be reached to ensure that the meaning behind behavioural measurement is understood across disciplines, work domains and task types. Future development efforts should focus on the cost effectiveness and feasibility of measurement tools including time spent training raters. Further, standards for the testing and reporting of psychometric evidence must be established. Last, a library of tools should be generated around whether the instrument measures general or domain-specific behaviours.
行为标记系统被提倡作为一种提供准确评估、指导反馈和确定团队合作改进措施影响的方法。本文报告了其在医疗保健中的使用质量状况,并讨论了这些发现对未来研究、开发和应用的影响。在这样做的过程中,本文提供了一个实用的资源,其中可以根据标记系统的优势和局限性来选择和评估它们。
四个研究问题构成了本次综述:行为标记系统的属性是什么?存在哪些可靠性和有效性证据?使用它们需要哪些技能和专业知识?它们如何应用于研究团队合作与其他结构之间的关系?
行为标记系统通常是为特定的工作领域或任务设计的。它们通常涵盖具有不一致术语的相似内容,这使得跨临床领域比较研究结果变得复杂。尽管采用了几种方法来确定标记系统的可靠性和有效性,但整个标记系统文献需要更可靠的可靠性和有效性证据。评分员培训对评分员熟练程度的影响参差不齐,但有证据表明,随着时间的推移可以取得进展。
必须达成对团队合作结构的定义共识,以确保在不同学科、工作领域和任务类型之间理解行为测量背后的含义。未来的开发工作应集中在衡量工具的成本效益和可行性上,包括培训评分员所花费的时间。此外,必须建立测试和报告心理测量证据的标准。最后,应该围绕该工具是否衡量一般行为或特定领域的行为生成一个工具库。