Cited by 958Simulation-Based Education in HealthcareInnovations in Medical EducationSurgical Simulation and Training

Anaesthetists’ Non-Technical Skills (ANTS): evaluation of a behavioural marker system † †Declaration of interest: The ANTS system was developed under research funding from the Scottish Council for Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education, now part of NHS Education for Scotland, through grants to the University of Aberdeen from September 1999 to August 2003. The views presented in this paper are those of the authors and should not be taken to represent the position or policy of the funding body.

Open access
Fletcher, G, Flin, R, McGeorge, P, Glavin, R, Maran, N, Patey, R·2003·British Journal of Anaesthesia

Abstract

Background Non-technical skills are critical for good anaesthetic practice but are not addressed explicitly in normal training. Realization of the need to train and assess these skills is growing, but these activities must be based on properly developed skills frameworks and validated measurement tools. A prototype behavioural marker system was developed using human factors research techniques. The aim of this study was to conduct an experimental evaluation to establish its basic psychometric properties and usability. Method The Anaesthetists' Non-Technical Skills (ANTS) system prototype comprises four skill categories (task management, team working, situation awareness, and decision making) divided into 15 elements, each with example behaviours. To investigate its experimental validity, reliably and usability, 50 consultant anaesthetists were trained to use the ANTS system. They were asked to rate the behaviour of a target anaesthetist using the prototype system in eight videos of simulated anaesthetic scenarios. Data were collected from the ratings forms and an evaluation questionnaire. Results The results showed that the system is complete, and that the skills are observable and can be rated with acceptable levels of agreement and accuracy. The internal consistency of the system appeared sound, and responses regarding usability were very positive. Conclusions The findings of the evaluation indicated that the ANTS system has a satisfactory level of validity, reliability and usability in an experimental setting, provided users receive adequate training. It is now ready to be tested in real training environments, so that full guidelines can be developed for its integration into the anaesthetic curriculum.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/bja/aeg112

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In medical education, nonspecialists who stand to benefit most from AI support are simultaneously those most susceptible to over-reliance.

    “In medical education, nonspecialists who stand to benefit most from AI support are simultaneously those most susceptible to over-reliance 32,33 .”

    From AI-induced never-skilling in medical education (2026) · cites this paper as [33]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fletcher, G., Flin, R., McGeorge, P., Glavin, R., Maran, N., & Patey, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
  • Aberdeen Royal Infirmary (GB)
Corresponding author
Flin, R
Venue
British Journal of Anaesthesia
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-05
Volume
90
Issue
5
Pages
580-588
ISSN
0007-0912 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2170119333
Cited by
958
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 37 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 47 · 2019: 52 · 2018: 48 · 2017: 48 · 2016: 59 · 2015: 49 · 2014: 57 · 2013: 65 · 2012: 52
FWCI
10.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Anaesthesia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Simulation-Based Education in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Surgical Simulation and Training
Keywords
non-technical skills, anesthesiology education, psychometric validation, reliability statistics, usability, task management, teamwork, situational awareness, clinical decision-making, human factors
MeSH terms
Adult, Anesthesiology, Clinical Competence, Consumer Behavior, Decision Making, Education, Medical, Graduate, Educational Measurement, Humans, Interprofessional Relations, Middle Aged, Psychometrics, Scotland, Task Performance and Analysis, Videotape Recording, Reproducibility of Results, Observer Variation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review