Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
BMJ Qual Saf. 2019 Aug;28(8):672-686. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008565. Epub 2019 May 25.
Over the past three decades multiple tools have been developed for the assessment of non-technical skills (NTS) in healthcare. This study was designed primarily to analyse how they have been designed and tested but also to consider guidance on how to select them.
To analyse the context of use, method of development, evidence of validity (including reliability) and usability of tools for the observer-based assessment of NTS in healthcare.
Systematic review.
Search of electronic resources, including PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, ERIC, PsycNet, Scopus, Google Scholar and Web of Science. Additional records identified through searching grey literature (OpenGrey, ProQuest, AHRQ, King's Fund, Health Foundation).
Studies of observer-based tools for NTS assessment in healthcare professionals (or undergraduates) were included if they: were available in English; published between January 1990 and March 2018; assessed two or more NTS; were designed for simulated or real clinical settings and had provided evidence of validity plus or minus usability. 11,101 articles were identified. After limits were applied, 576 were retrieved for evaluation and 118 articles included in this review.
One hundred and eighteen studies describing 76 tools for assessment of NTS in healthcare met the eligibility criteria. There was substantial variation in the method of design of the tools and the extent of validity, and usability testing. There was considerable overlap in the skills assessed, and the contexts of use of the tools.
This study suggests a need for rationalisation and standardisation of the way we assess NTS in healthcare and greater consistency in how tools are developed and deployed.
在过去的三十年中,已经开发出多种工具来评估医疗保健中的非技术技能(NTS)。本研究旨在主要分析这些工具的设计和测试方法,但也考虑了选择工具的指导原则。
分析用于医疗保健中基于观察者的 NTS 评估工具的使用背景、开发方法、有效性(包括可靠性)证据和可用性。
系统评价。
电子资源搜索,包括 PubMed、Embase、CINAHL、ERIC、PsycNet、Scopus、Google Scholar 和 Web of Science。通过搜索灰色文献(OpenGrey、ProQuest、AHRQ、King's Fund、Health Foundation)进一步确定了其他记录。
如果研究是关于医疗保健专业人员(或本科生)的基于观察者的 NTS 评估工具,且工具为英文,并发表于 1990 年 1 月至 2018 年 3 月之间,评估了两个或更多 NTS,是为模拟或真实临床环境设计的,并提供了有效性和可用性证据,则将其纳入本研究。共确定了 11,101 篇文章。应用限制后,共检索了 576 篇文章进行评估,并纳入了 118 篇文章。
共有 118 项研究描述了 76 种用于评估医疗保健中非技术技能的工具符合入选标准。工具的设计方法和有效性以及可用性测试方面存在很大差异。评估的技能以及工具的使用背景存在很大重叠。
本研究表明,我们需要对医疗保健中的 NTS 评估方法进行合理化和标准化,并在工具的开发和部署方面更加一致。