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 accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
rwg: an assessment of within-group interrater agreement
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.306 · Cited by 2,221 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Teamwork in healthcare: Key discoveries enabling safer, high-quality care.
Rosen, M. A., DiazGranados, D., Dietz, A. S., Benishek, L. E., Thompson, D., Pronovost, P. J., & Weaver, S. J. (2018) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/amp0000298 · Cited by 1,283 · see citing works
Value of Debriefing during Simulated Crisis Management: Oral versusVideo-assisted Oral Feedback
Savoldelli, G. L., Naik, V. N., Park, J., Joo, H. S., Chow, R., & Hamstra, S. J. (2006) · Anesthesiology · doi:10.1097/00000542-200608000-00010 · Cited by 430 · see citing works
Effect of simulation‐based team training in airway management: a systematic review
Nielsen, R. P., Nikolajsen, L., Paltved, C., & Aagaard, R. (2021) · Anaesthesia · doi:10.1111/anae.15375 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
AI-induced never-skilling in medical education
Ke, Y., Jin, L., Ong, J. C. L., Thirunavukarasu, A. J., Car, J., Cheung, C. Y., Tham, Y. C., Ting, D. S. W., Ong, M. E. H., Compton, S., et al. (2026) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-026-04438-y · Cited by 35 · see citing works
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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