Team leadership assessment after advanced life support courses comparing real teams vs. simulated teams.
Options
BORIS DOI
Publisher DOI
PubMed ID
36571051
Description
AIM
Effective team leadership is essential during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and is taught during international advanced life support (ALS) courses. This study compared the judgement of team leadership during summative assessments after those courses using different validated assessment tools while comparing two different summative assessment methods.
METHODS
After ALS courses, twenty videos of simulated team assessments and 20 videos of real team assessments were evaluated and compared. Simulated team assessment used an instructor miming a whole team, whereas real team assessment used course participants as a team that acted on the team leader's commands. Three examiners individually evaluated each video on four different validated team leadership assessment tools and on the original European Resuscitation Council's (ERC) scenario test assessment form which does not assess leadership. The primary outcome was the average performance summary score between all three examiners for each assessment method.
RESULTS
The average performance summary score for each of the four assessment tools was significantly higher for real team assessments compared to simulated team assessments (all p-values < 0.01). The summary score of the ERC's scenario test assessment form was comparable between both assessment methods (p = 0.569), meaning that participants of both assessments performed equally.
CONCLUSION
Team leadership performance is rated significantly higher in real team summative assessments after ALS courses compared to simulated team assessments by four leadership assessment tools but not by the standard ERC's scenario test assessment form. These results suggest that summative assessments in ALS courses should integrate real team assessments, and a new assessment tool including an assessment of leadership skills needs to be developed.
Effective team leadership is essential during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and is taught during international advanced life support (ALS) courses. This study compared the judgement of team leadership during summative assessments after those courses using different validated assessment tools while comparing two different summative assessment methods.
METHODS
After ALS courses, twenty videos of simulated team assessments and 20 videos of real team assessments were evaluated and compared. Simulated team assessment used an instructor miming a whole team, whereas real team assessment used course participants as a team that acted on the team leader's commands. Three examiners individually evaluated each video on four different validated team leadership assessment tools and on the original European Resuscitation Council's (ERC) scenario test assessment form which does not assess leadership. The primary outcome was the average performance summary score between all three examiners for each assessment method.
RESULTS
The average performance summary score for each of the four assessment tools was significantly higher for real team assessments compared to simulated team assessments (all p-values < 0.01). The summary score of the ERC's scenario test assessment form was comparable between both assessment methods (p = 0.569), meaning that participants of both assessments performed equally.
CONCLUSION
Team leadership performance is rated significantly higher in real team summative assessments after ALS courses compared to simulated team assessments by four leadership assessment tools but not by the standard ERC's scenario test assessment form. These results suggest that summative assessments in ALS courses should integrate real team assessments, and a new assessment tool including an assessment of leadership skills needs to be developed.
Date of Publication
2022-12-07
Publication Type
Article
Keyword(s)
CPR ERC advanced life support assessment education human factors
Language(s)
en
Contributor(s)
Theiler, Lorenz |
Series
Frontiers in psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Research Foundation
ISSN
1664-1078
Access(Rights)
open.access