Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 274

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Improving medical emergency team (MET) performance using a novel curriculum and a computerized human patient simulator

Open access
DeVita, M A·2005·Quality and Safety in Health Care

Abstract

PROBLEM: Advance cardiac life support (ACLS) training does not address coordination of team resources to improve the ability of teams to deliver needed treatments reliably and rapidly. Our objective was to use a human simulation training educational environment to develop multidisciplinary team skills and improve medical emergency team (MET) performance. We report findings of a crisis team training course that is focused on organization. SETTING: Large center for human simulation training at a university affiliated tertiary care hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Ten courses were delivered and 138 clinically experienced individuals were trained (69 critical care nurses, 48 physicians, and 21 respiratory therapists). All participants were ACLS trained and experienced in responding to cardiac arrest situations. COURSE DESIGN: Each course had four components: (1) a web based presentation and pretest before the course; (2) a brief reinforcing didactic session on the day of the course; (3) three of five different simulated scenarios; each followed by (4) debriefing and analysis with the team. Three of five simulator scenarios were used; scenario selection and order was random. Trainees did not repeat any scenario or role during the training. Participants were video recorded to assist debriefing. Debriefing focused on reinforcing organizational aspects of team performance: assuming designated roles independently, completing goals (tasks) assigned to each role, and directed communication. MEASURES FOR IMPROVEMENT: Participants graded their performance of specific organizational and treatment tasks within specified time intervals by consensus. Simulator "survival" depended on supporting oxygenation, ventilation, circulation within 60 seconds, and delivering the definitive treatment within 3 minutes. EFFECTS OF CHANGE: Simulated survival (following predetermined criteria for death) increased from 0% to 89%. The initial team task completion rate was 10-45% and rose to 80-95% during the third session. LESSONS LEARNT: Training multidisciplinary teams to organize using simulation technology is feasible. This preliminary report warrants more detailed inquiry.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/qshc.2004.011148

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 274

Metadata

Authors
DeVita, M. A.
Venue
Quality and Safety in Health Care
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2005-10-01
Volume
14
Issue
5
Pages
326-331
ISSN
  • 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-3901
OpenAlex
W2096487963
Cited by
274
References
0
FWCI
8.39
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Improving medical emergency team (MET) performance using a novel curriculum and a computerized human patient simulator. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/qshc.2004.011148
The paper
DeVita, M. A. (2005). Improving medical emergency team (MET) performance using a novel curriculum and a computerized human patient simulator. Quality and Safety in Health Care. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2004.011148

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.