BackgroundEducational interventions to improve teamwork in crisis situations have proliferated in recent years with substantial variation in teamwork measurement. This systematic review aimed to synthesise available tools and their measurement properties in order to identify the most robust tool for measuring the teamwork performance of teams in crisis situations.MethodsSearches were conducted in Embase (via OVID), PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Education Resources Information Center, Medline and Medline In-Process (via OVID) (through 12 January 2017). Studies evaluating the measurement properties of teamwork assessment tools for teams in clinical or simulated crisis situations were included. Two independent reviewers screened studies based on predetermined criteria and completed data extraction. Risk of bias was assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist.ResultsThe search yielded 1822 references. Twenty studies were included, representing 13 assessment tools. Tools were primarily assessed in simulated resuscitation scenarios for emergency department teams. The Team Emergency Assessment Measure (TEAM) had the most validation studies (n=5), which demonstrated three sources of validity (content, construct and concurrent) and three sources of reliability (internal consistency, inter-rater reliability and test–retest reliability). Most studies of TEAM’s measurement properties were at no risk of bias.ConclusionsA number of tools are available for assessing teamwork performance of teams in crisis situations. Although selection will ultimately depend on the user’s context, TEAM may be the most promising tool given its measurement evidence. Currently, there is a lack of tools to assess teamwork performance during intraoperative crisis situations. Additional research is needed in this regard.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Non-technical skills, such as communication or leadership, are integral to clinical competence in anaesthesia. There is a need for valid and reliable tools to measure anaesthetists' non-technical performance for both initial and continuing professional development. This systematic review aims to summarise the measurement properties of existing assessment tools to determine which tool is most robust. Methods: Embase (via OVID), Medline and Medline in Process (via OVID), and reference lists of included studies and previously published relevant systematic reviews were searched (through August 2017). Quantitative studies investigating the measurement properties of tools used to assess anaesthetists' intraoperative non-technical skills, either in a clinical or simulated environment, were included. Pairs of independent reviewers determined eligibility and extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using the COSMIN checklist. Results: The search yielded 978 studies, of which 14 studies describing seven tools met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 12 involved simulated crisis settings only. The measurement properties of the Anaesthetists' Non-Technical Skills (ANTS) tool were most commonly assessed (n¼9 studies), with studies of two types of validity (content, concurrent) and two types of reliability (internal consistency, interrater). Most of these studies, however, were at serious risk of bias. Conclusions: Though there are seven tools for assessing the non-technical skills of anaesthetists, only ANTS has been extensively investigated with regard to its measurement properties. ANTS appears to have acceptable validity and reliability for assessing non-technical skills of anaesthetists in both simulated and clinical settings. Future research should consider additional clinical contexts and types of measurement properties.

No abstract