一项关于评估创伤团队表现的非技术技能评估工具的范围综述。
A scoping review of nontechnical skill assessment tools to evaluate trauma team performance.
作者信息
Bhangu Avneesh, Stevenson Christina, Szulewski Adam, MacDonald Aidan, Nolan Brodie
机构信息
From the Faculty of Health Sciences (A.B.), School of Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada; School of Medicine (C.S.), University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland; Department of Emergency Medicine (A.S.) and Department of Psychology (A.S.), Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario; Department of Biological Sciences (A.M.), Bishop's University, Sherbrooke, Quebec; Division of Emergency Medicine, Department of Medicine (B.N.), University of Toronto; Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute (B.N.), St. Michael's Hospital; and Department of Emergency Medicine (B.N.), St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
出版信息
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2022 May 1;92(5):e81-e91. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000003492. Epub 2021 Dec 14.
BACKGROUND
The objective of this scoping review was to identify assessment tools of trauma team performance (outside of technical skills) and assess the validity and reliability of each tool in assessing trauma team performance.
METHODS
We searched Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Ovid Medline, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from inception to June 1, 2021. English studies that evaluated trauma team performance using nontechnical skill assessment tools in a simulation or real-world setting were included. Studies were assessed by two independent reviewers for meeting inclusion/exclusion criteria. Data regarding team assessment tools were extracted and synthesized into behavior domains. Each tool was then assessed for validity and reliability.
RESULTS
The literature search returned 4,215 articles with 29 meeting inclusion criteria. Our search identified 12 trauma team performance assessment tools. Most studies were conducted in the United States (n = 20 [69%]). Twenty studies (69%) assessed trauma team performance in a simulation setting; Team Emergency Assessment Measure (TEAM) and Trauma Nontechnical Skills Scale (T-NOTECHS) were the only tools to be applied in a simulation and real-world setting. Most studies assessed trauma team performance using video review technology (n = 17 [59%]). Five overarching themes were designed to encompass behavioral domains captured across the 12 tools: (1) Leadership, (2) Communication, (3) Teamwork, (4) Assessment, and (5) Situation Awareness. The reliability and validity of T-NOTECHS were investigated by the greatest number of studies (n = 13); however, TEAM had the most robust evidence of reliability and validity.
CONCLUSION
We identified 12 trauma team performance tools that assessed nontechnical skills to varying degrees. Trauma Nontechnical Skills Scale and TEAM tools had the most evidence to support their reliability and validity. Considering the limited research in the impact of trauma team performance on patient outcomes, future studies could use video review technology in authentic trauma cases to further study this important relationship.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses, level IV.
背景
本范围综述的目的是识别创伤团队绩效（技术技能之外）的评估工具，并评估每种工具在评估创伤团队绩效方面的有效性和可靠性。
方法
我们检索了Embase、Cochrane图书馆、Web of Science、Ovid Medline以及护理与联合健康文献累积索引，检索时间从各数据库建库至2021年6月1日。纳入在模拟或真实场景中使用非技术技能评估工具评估创伤团队绩效的英文研究。由两名独立评审员评估研究是否符合纳入/排除标准。提取有关团队评估工具的数据并综合为行为领域。然后评估每种工具的有效性和可靠性。
结果
文献检索共返回4215篇文章，其中29篇符合纳入标准。我们的检索确定了12种创伤团队绩效评估工具。大多数研究在美国进行（n = 20 [69%]）。20项研究（69%）在模拟场景中评估创伤团队绩效；团队紧急评估措施（TEAM）和创伤非技术技能量表（T-NOTECHS）是仅在模拟和真实场景中应用的工具。大多数研究使用视频回顾技术评估创伤团队绩效（n = 17 [59%]）。设计了五个总体主题以涵盖12种工具所涉及的行为领域：（1）领导力，（2）沟通，（3）团队合作，（4）评估，以及（5）态势感知。对T-NOTECHS的可靠性和有效性进行研究的文献数量最多（n = 13）；然而，TEAM具有最有力的可靠性和有效性证据。
结论
我们识别出12种不同程度评估非技术技能的创伤团队绩效工具。创伤非技术技能量表和TEAM工具拥有最多支持其可靠性和有效性的证据。鉴于创伤团队绩效对患者结局影响的研究有限，未来研究可在真实创伤病例中使用视频回顾技术，以进一步研究这一重要关系。
证据水平
系统评价和Meta分析，四级。
Zotero 插件