The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Simulation based teamwork training for emergency department staff: does it improve clinical team performance when added to an existing didactic teamwork curriculum?
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if high fidelity simulation based team training can improve clinical team performance when added to an existing didactic teamwork curriculum. SETTING: Level 1 trauma center and academic emergency medicine training program. PARTICIPANTS: Emergency department (ED) staff including nurses, technicians, emergency medicine residents, and attending physicians. INTERVENTION: ED staff who had recently received didactic training in the Emergency Team Coordination Course (ETCC) also received an 8 hour intensive experience in an ED simulator in which three scenarios of graduated difficulty were encountered. A comparison group, also ETCC trained, was assigned to work together in the ED for one 8 hour shift. Experimental and comparison teams were observed in the ED before and after the intervention. DESIGN: Single, crossover, prospective, blinded and controlled observational study. Teamwork ratings using previously validated behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS) were completed by outside trained observers in the ED. Observers were blinded to the identification of the teams. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between experimental and comparison groups at baseline. The experimental team showed a trend towards improvement in the quality of team behavior (p = 0.07); the comparison group showed no change in team behavior during the two observation periods (p = 0.55). Members of the experimental team rated simulation based training as a useful educational method. CONCLUSION: High fidelity medical simulation appears to be a promising method for enhancing didactic teamwork training. This approach, using a number of patients, is more representative of clinical care and is therefore the proper paradigm in which to perform teamwork training. It is, however, unclear how much simulator based training must augment didactic teamwork training for clinically meaningful differences to become apparent.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The measurement of active errors: methodological issues.
Lilford, R. J. (2003) · Quality and Safety in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qhc.12.suppl_2.ii8 · Cited by 101
Cited by
Zajac, S., Woods, A., Tannenbaum, S., Salas, E., & Holladay, C. L. (2021) · Frontiers in Communication · doi:10.3389/fcomm.2021.606445 · Cited by 235
Fransen, A. F., van de Ven, J., Banga, F. R., Mol, B. W. J., & Oei, S. G. (2020) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd011545.pub2 · Cited by 89
Are we at risk of groupthink in our approach to teamwork interventions in health care?
Kaba, A., Wishart, I., Fraser, K., Coderre, S., & McLaughlin, K. (2016) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/medu.12943 · Cited by 83
Metadata
- Authors
- Shapiro, M. J.
- Venue
- Quality and Safety in Health Care
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2004-12-01
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 417-421
- ISSN
- 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
- 1475-3901
- OpenAlex
- W2114055009
- Cited by
- 465
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 7.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.