Observer-based tools for non-technical skills assessment in simulated and real clinical environments in healthcare: a systematic review. Issue 8 (25th May 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Higham, Helen; Greig, Paul R; Rutherford, John; Vincent, Laura; Young, Duncan; Vincent, Charles
• Is Part Of: BMJ quality & safety. Volume 28:Issue 8(2019)
• Page Start: 672
• Page End: 686
• Publication Date: 2019-05-25
• Subjects: team training -- performance measures -- medical education; Medical care -- Quality control -- Periodicals; Health facilities -- Risk management -- Periodicals; Medical errors -- Prevention -- Periodicals; 362.106805
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008565
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2044-5415

Abstract

Abstract : Background: 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. Objectives: 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. Design: Systematic review. Data sources: 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). Study selection: 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. Results: 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. Conclusion: 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.