Background: Teamwork training has been included in several emergency medicine (EM) curricula; the aim of this study was to compare different scales' performance in teamwork evaluation during simulation for EM residents. Methods: In the period October 2013-June 2014, we performed bimonthly high-fidelity simulation sessions, with novice (I-III year, group 1 (G1)) and senior (IV-V year, group 2 (G2)) EM residents; scenarios were designed to simulate management of critical patients. Videos were assessed by three independent raters with the following scales: Emergency Team Dynamics (ETD), Clinical Teamwork Scale (CTS) and Team Emergency Assessment Measure (TEAM). In the period March-June, after each scenario, participants completed the CTS and ETD. Results: The analysis based on 18 sessions showed good internal consistency and good to fair inter-rater reliability for the three scales (TEAM, CTS, ETD: Cronbach's α 0.954, 0.954, 0.921; Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC), 0.921, 0.917, 0.608). Single CTS items achieved highly significant ICC results, with 12 of the total 13 comparisons achieving ICC results ≥0.70; a similar result was confirmed for 4 of the total 11 TEAM items and 1 of the 8 total ETD items. Spearman's r was 0.585 between ETD and CTS, 0.694 between ETD and TEAM, and 0.634 between TEAM and CTS (scales converted to percentages, all p<0.0001). Participants gave themselves a better evaluation compared with external raters (CTS: 101±9 vs 90±9; ETD: 25±3 vs 20±5, all p<0.0001). Conclusions: All examined scales demonstrated good internal consistency, with a slightly better inter-rater reliability for CTS compared with the other tools. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
Background: Teamwork training has been included in several emergency medicine (EM) curricula; the aim of this study was to compare different scales' performance in teamwork evaluation during simulation for EM residents. Methods: In the period October 2013-June 2014, we performed bimonthly high-fidelity simulation sessions, with novice (I-III year, group 1 (G1)) and senior (IV-V year, group 2 (G2)) EM residents; scenarios were designed to simulate management of critical patients. Videos were assessed by three independent raters with the following scales: Emergency Team Dynamics (ETD), Clinical Teamwork Scale (CTS) and Team Emergency Assessment Measure (TEAM). In the period March-June, after each scenario, participants completed the CTS and ETD. Results: The analysis based on 18 sessions showed good internal consistency and good to fair inter-rater reliability for the three scales (TEAM, CTS, ETD: Cronbach's α 0.954, 0.954, 0.921; Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC), 0.921, 0.917, 0.608). Single CTS items achieved highly significant ICC results, with 12 of the total 13 comparisons achieving ICC results ≥0.70; a similar result was confirmed for 4 of the total 11 TEAM items and 1 of the 8 total ETD items. Spearman's r was 0.585 between ETD and CTS, 0.694 between ETD and TEAM, and 0.634 between TEAM and CTS (scales converted to percentages, all p<0.0001). Participants gave themselves a better evaluation compared with external raters (CTS: 101±9 vs 90±9; ETD: 25±3 vs 20±5, all p<0.0001). Conclusions: All examined scales demonstrated good internal consistency, with a slightly better inter-rater reliability for CTS compared with the other tools. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
Authors: David A Davis; Paul E Mazmanian; Michael Fordis; R Van Harrison; Kevin E Thorpe; Laure Perrier Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-09-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Emily S Binstadt; Ron M Walls; Benjamin A White; Eric S Nadel; James K Takayesu; Tobias D Barker; Stephen J Nelson; Charles N Pozner Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2006-12-11 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Jeanne-Marie Guise; Shad H Deering; Barbara G Kanki; Patricia Osterweil; Hong Li; Motomi Mori; Nancy K Lowe Journal: Simul Healthc Date: 2008 Impact factor: 1.929
Authors: James F Malec; Laurence C Torsher; William F Dunn; Douglas A Wiegmann; Jacqueline J Arnold; Dwight A Brown; Vaishali Phatak Journal: Simul Healthc Date: 2007 Impact factor: 1.929
Authors: Karen S Cosby; Rebecca Roberts; Lisa Palivos; Christopher Ross; Jeffrey Schaider; Scott Sherman; Isam Nasr; Eileen Couture; Moses Lee; Shari Schabowski; Ibrar Ahmad; R Douglas Scott Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2007-10-15 Impact factor: 5.721