AimThe aim of the study reported here was to address the need to assess and train teamwork and non-technical skills in the context of Resuscitation. Specifically, we sought to develop a tool that is feasible to use and psychometrically sound to assess team behaviours during cardiac arrest resuscitation attempts.MethodsTo ensure validity, reliability, and feasibility, the Observational Skill based Clinical Assessment tool for Resuscitation (OSCAR) was developed in 3 phases. A review of the literature leading to initial tool development was followed by an assessment of face and content validity, and finally a thorough reliability assessment, using Cronbach's α to assess internal consistency and intraclass correlation to assess inter-rater reliability.ResultsOSCAR was developed methodically, and tested for face and content validity. Cronbach's α results ranged from 0.736 to 0.965 demonstrating high internal consistency, and intraclass correlation results ranged from 0.652 to 0.911, all of which are strongly significant and indicate good inter-rater reliability.ConclusionOn the basis of our results, we conclude that OSCAR is psychometrically robust, scientifically sound, and clinically relevant. We have developed the Observational Skill-based Clinical Assessment tool for Resuscitation (OSCAR) for the assessment of non-technical skills in Resuscitation teams. We propose the use of this tool in simulation and real Cardiac Arrest Resuscitation attempts to assess, guide and train non-technical skills to team members, to improve patient safety and maximise the chances of successful resuscitation.

Background and aimFollowing high profile errors resulting in patient harm and attracting negative publicity, the healthcare sector has begun to focus on training non-technical teamworking skills as one way of reducing the rate of adverse events. Within the area of resuscitation, two tools have been developed recently aiming to assess these skills – TEAM and OSCAR. The aims of the study reported here were:To determine the inter-rater reliability of the tools in assessing performance within the context of resuscitation.To correlate scores of the same resuscitation teams episodes using both tools, thereby determining their concurrent validity within the context of resuscitation.To carry out a critique of both tools and establish how best each one may be utilised.MethodsThe study consisted of two phases – reliability assessment; and content comparison, and correlation. Assessments were made by two resuscitation experts, who watched 24 pre-recorded resuscitation simulations, and independently rated team behaviours using both tools. The tools were critically appraised, and correlation between overall score surrogates was assessed.ResultsBoth OSCAR and TEAM achieved high levels of inter-rater reliability (in the form of adequate intra-class coefficients) and minor significant differences between Wilcoxon tests. Comparison of the scores from both tools demonstrated a high degree of correlation (and hence concurrent validity). Finally, critique of each tool highlighted differences in length and complexity.ConclusionBoth OSCAR and TEAM can be used to assess resuscitation teams in a simulated environment, with the tools correlating well with one another. We envisage a role for both tools – with TEAM giving a quick, global assessment of the team, but OSCAR enabling more detailed breakdown of the assessment, facilitating feedback, and identifying areas of weakness for future training.