Objective structured assessment of nontechnical skills: Reliability of a global rating scale for the in-training assessment in the operating room

Intraoperative Communication Among Men and Women Surgeons With Nursing and Anesthesia Providers

INTRODUCTION

Gender bias has been reported by women surgeons, but its impact on communication in the operating room (OR) is unclear. OR communication is critical to understand, as it directly impacts patient outcomes. The current study evaluates potential gender bias in the type and quality of communication between surgeons and OR nursing and anesthesia providers.

METHODS

We developed a novel intraoperative communication assessment tool, Operating Room Communication Quality assessment tool (OComm), which was adapted from previously validated teamwork assessment tools. Independent coders recorded the instances of conversation and categorized them into clinical or casual communication. After the operation, the participants were assigned a score from the OComm tool. Participants were then given the same OComm measure to assess their self-perceived communication quality and collect demographic information.

RESULTS

For both genders, surgeons' median self-perceived OComm scores was 3.47/4, but surgeons observed OComm score was 2.91/4. Anesthesia providers noted the highest median self-perceived OComm score of 3.65/4 but the lowest observed OComm median score of 2.29/4. From both surgeon to nurse and surgeon to anesthesia provider, there was no association between the gender and frequency of casual conversation (P = 1 > 0.025).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no gender difference in the degree to which women and men surgeons engaged in casual conversation with nursing and anesthesia providers. Surgeons, both men and women, were also more likely to rate their quality of communication lower than the nurses and anesthesia providers, while independent coders were more likely to rate surgeons' quality of communication higher than that of nurses and anesthesia providers.

Instruments to evaluate non-technical skills during high fidelity simulation: A systematic review

Introduction

High Fidelity Simulations (HFS) are increasingly used to develop Non-Technical Skills (NTS) in healthcare providers, medical and nursing students. Instruments to measure NTS are needed to evaluate the healthcare providers' (HCPs) performance during HFS. The aim of this systematic review is to describe the domains, items, characteristics and psychometric properties of instruments devised to evaluate the NTS of HCPs during HFS.

Methods

A systematic review of the literature was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Studies were retrieved from PubMed, Cinahl, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, ProQuest and PubPsych. Studies evaluating the measurement properties of instruments used to assess NTS during HFS training were included. Pairs of independent reviewers determined the eligibility, extracted and evaluated the data. Risk of bias and appraisal of the methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist, and the quality of the evidence with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

Results

A total of 3,953 articles were screened. A total of 110 reports were assessed for eligibility and 26 studies were included. Studies were conducted in Europe/United Kingdom (n = 13; 50%), North America/Australia (n = 12; 46%) and Thailand (n = 1; 4%). The NTS instruments reported in this review included from 1 to 14 domains (median of 4, Q1 = 3.75, Q3 = 5) and from 3 to 63 items (median of 15, Q1 = 10, Q3 = 19.75). Out of 19 NTS assessment instruments for HFS, the Team Emergency Assessment Measure (TEAM) can be recommended for use to assess NTS. All the other instruments require further research to assess their quality in order to be recommended for use during HFS training. Eight NTS instruments had a positive overall rating of their content validity with at least a moderate quality of evidence.

Conclusion

Among a large variety of published instruments, TEAM can be recommended for use to assess NTS during HFS. Evidence is still limited on essential aspects of validity and reliability of all the other NTS instruments included in this review. Further research is warranted to establish their performance in order to be reliably used for HFS.

Why non-technical skills matter in surgery. New paradigms for surgical leaders

The surgical literature is paying more and more attention to the topic of soft or non-technical skills (NTS), defined as those cognitive and social skills that characterize high-performing individuals and teams. NTS are essential in supporting surgeons in dealing with unexpected situations. During the COVID-19 pandemic, NTS have been considered crucial in defining situation awareness, enhancing decision making, communicating among groups and teams, and fostering leadership. With a "looking back and planning forward" approach, the current perspective aims at deepening the contribution of NTS for surgeons to deal with the unexpected challenges posed by the COVID crisis, surgical emergencies, the introduction of new technologies in clinical practice, to understand how such skills may help shape the surgical leaders of the future.

Integrative Review of Non-Technical Skills Frameworks to Apply for Air Medical Transfer of Pregnant Women

OBJECTIVE

To identify the most suitable non-technical skills framework to adapt and apply to the air medical transfer of pregnant women.

DATA SOURCES

Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL, Science Direct, and Google Scholar.

STUDY SELECTION

We retrieved potentially relevant articles using a predefined combination of keywords extended with truncation and Boolean operators. Database and manual reference searches yielded 569 peer-reviewed articles. We included articles if they presented empirical data and described non-technical or cognitive competency skills frameworks for health care professionals. We discussed any ambiguities regarding inclusion, and they were resolved by consensus. We retained 71 full-text articles for final review.

DATA EXTRACTION

We coded extracted data under four criteria: non-technical skill categories, context of use, psychometric properties, and rating system. We generated descriptive summary tables of the characteristics of existing non-technical skills frameworks based on publication year, method of development, clinical setting, clinical specialty, routine/crisis-based performance, and team/individual performance.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We identified 42 non-technical skills frameworks from a variety of health care settings. We critically examined context of use and how use in various clinical settings may align with air transfers of pregnant women. Our findings illustrate the importance of team-based and routine performance rather than crisis-focused skills. Maintaining situational awareness throughout all stages of the transfer and communicating effectively with team members, the pregnant woman, and her partner are skills that are particularly important to ensure good outcomes.

CONCLUSION

We selected the Global Assessment of Obstetric Team Performance as the most suitable non-technical skills framework to adapt to the clinical setting of air medical transfer of pregnant women. We considered the clinical specialty, specific non-technical skills required in the setting, the framework's properties, and the requirement to focus on routine team performance.

Gathering Validity Evidence to Adapt the Non-technical Skills for Surgeons (NOTSS) Assessment Tool to the United States Context

BACKGROUND

Nontechnical skills are of increasing focus for safe and effective performance in the operating room. Assessment tools have been developed in Europe, Africa, and Asia but not adapted to the unique aspects of surgical delivery in the United States. Our objective was to use the Non-Technical Skills for Surgeons (NOTSS) assessment tool as a basis to establish consensus on essential nontechnical skills for surgical trainees and practicing surgeons in the U.S surgical context.

STUDY DESIGN

A mixed-methods research design was used in the form of a modified Delphi process to build consensus on essential NOTSS. A panel of surgical experts from hospitals across the U.S used this iterative process in 4 rounds to generate, rate, and classify behaviors. The primary outcome was consensus on behaviors as being essential for surgeons to achieve the best patient outcomes in the operating room, with a median rating of ≥6 on a 7-point scale for inclusion.

RESULTS

A total of 10 surgical experts participated. One hundred and thirty eight behaviors were generated in Round 1, and reduced to 100 behaviors in Rounds 2 and 3 based on application of inclusion criteria. The final skill list consisted of behaviors in Situation Awareness (n = 26), Decision Making (n = 18), Teamwork (n = 25), and Leadership (n = 31). No additional NOTSS categories or elements emerged from the analysis. In Round 4, all 100 behaviors were successfully grouped into 12 nontechnical skills elements. Labels and definitions were reworded to reflect the U.S. context, and an appropriate assessment scale was selected.

CONCLUSIONS

A panel of surgical experts from across the U.S. reached consensus on the essential NOTSS to achieve the best patient outcomes in the operating room. These behaviors form an empirical basis for the first context-specific nontechnical skills assessment and training tool for practicing surgeons in the U.S.

Comprehensive Literature Search to Identify Assessment Tools for Operating Room Nontechnical Skills to Determine Common Critical Components

BACKGROUND

Effective use of nontechnical skills (NTS) contributes to the provision of safe, quality care in the fast-paced, dynamic setting of the operating room (OR). Inter-professional education of NTS to OR team members can improve performance. Such training requires the accurate measurement of NTS in order to identify gaps in their utilization by OR teams. Although several instruments for measuring OR NTS exist in the literature, each tool tends to define specific NTS differently.

AIM

We aimed to determine commonalities in defined measurements among existing OR NTS tools.

METHODS

We undertook a comprehensive literature review of assessment tools for OR NTS to determine the critical components common to these instruments. A PubMed search of the literature from May 2009 to May 2019 combined various combinations of keywords and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) related to the following subjects: teamwork, teams, assessment, debriefing, surgery, operating room, nontechnical, communication. From this start, articles were selected describing specific instruments. Three reviewers then identified the common components measured among these assessment tools. Reviewers collated kin constructs within each instrument using frequency counts of similarly termed and conceptualized components.

RESULTS

The initial PubMed search produced 119 articles of which 24 articles satisfied the inclusion criteria. Within these articles, 10 assessment tools evaluated OR NTS. Kin constructs were grouped into six NTS categories in the following decreasing frequency order: communication, situation awareness, teamwork, leadership, decision making, and task management/decision making (equal).

CONCLUSION

NTS OR assessment tools in the literature have a variety of kin constructs related to the specific measured components within the instruments. Such kin constructs contain thematic cohesion across six primary NTS groupings with some variation in scale and scope. Future plans include using this information to develop an easy-to-use assessment tool to assist with debriefing in the clinical environment.

Video Feedback and Video Modeling in Teaching Laparoscopic Surgery: A Visionary Concept from Kiel

Learning curves for endoscopic surgery are long and flat. Various techniques and methods are now available for surgical endoscopic training, such as pelvitrainers, virtual trainers, and body donor surgery. Video modeling and video feedback are commonly used in professional training. We report, for the first time, the application of video modeling and video feedback for endoscopic training in gynecology. The purpose is to present an innovative method of training. Attendees (residents and specialists) of minimally invasive surgery courses were asked to perform specific tasks, which were video recorded in a multimodular concept. Feedback was given later by an expert at a joint meeting. The attendees were asked to fill a questionnaire in order to assess video feedback given by the expert. The advantages of video feedback and video modeling for the development of surgical skills were given a high rating (median 84%, interquartile ranges (IQR) 72.5–97.5%, n = 37). The question as to whether the attendees would recommend such training was also answered very positively (median 100%, IQR 89.5–100%, n = 37). We noted a clear difference between subjective perception and objective feedback (58%, IQR 40.5–76%, n = 37). Video feedback and video modeling are easy to implement in surgical training setups, and help trainees at all levels of education.

Non-technical skills in robotic surgery and impact on near-miss events: a multi-center study

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery requires a set of non-technical skills (NTS), because of the complex environment. We aim to study relationship between NTS and near-miss events in robotic surgery.

METHODS

This is an observational study in five French centers. Three robotic procedures were observed and filmed by one of expert trainers in NTS. They established and scored a non-technical skills in robotic surgery (NTSRS) score, that included eight items, each scored from 1 to 5, to assess the whole surgical teams. The surgical teams also self-assessed their work. The number of near-miss events was recorded and classified as minor, or major but no harm incidents, independently by two surgeons. Correlations were Spearman coefficients.

RESULTS

Of the 26 procedures included, 15 were prostatectomy (58%), 9 nephrectomy (35%), and 2 pyeloplasty (7.7%). Half of procedures (n = 13) were performed by surgeons with extensive RS experience (more than 150 procedures). Per procedure, there was a median (quartiles) of 9 (7; 11) near-miss events. There was 1 (0; 2) major near-miss events, with no harm. The median NTSRS score was 18 (14; 21), out of 40. The number of near-miss events was strongly correlated with the NTSRS score (r = - 0.92, p < 0.001) but was not correlated with the surgeon's experience. The surgeons for fifteen (58%) procedures, and the bed-side surgeons for 11 (42%) procedures, felt that there was no need for an improvement in the quality of their NTS. None of the surgeons gave a negative self-evaluation for any procedure; in three procedures (12%), the bed-side surgeons self-assessed negatively, on ergonomics.

CONCLUSION

Occurrence of near-miss events was reduced in teams managing NTS. Specific NTS surgical team training is essential for robotic surgery as it may have a significant impact on risk management.

Nontechnical Competency Framework for Health Professionals in All-Hazard Emergency Environment: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

To summarize characteristics and commonalities of non-technical competency frameworks for health professionals in emergency and disaster.

METHODS

An electronic literature search was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE, ERIC, Scopus, Cochrane database, and Google Scholar to identify original English-language articles related to development, evaluation or application of the nontechnical competency frameworks. Reviewers assessed identified articles for exclusion/inclusion criteria and abstracted data on study design, framework characteristics, and reliability/validity evidence.

RESULTS

Of the 9627 abstracts screened, 65 frameworks were identified from 94 studies that were eligible for result extraction. Sixty (63.8%) studies concentrated on clinical settings. Common scenarios of the studies were acute critical events in hospitals (44;46.8%) and nonspecified disasters (39;41.5%). Most of the participants (76; 80.9%) were clinical practitioners, and participants in 36 (38.3%) studies were multispecialty. Thirty-three (50.8%) and 42 (64.6%) frameworks had not reported evidence on reliability and validity, respectively. Fourteen of the most commonly involved domains were identified from the frameworks.

CONCLUSIONS

Nontechnical competency frameworks applied to multidisciplinary emergency health professionals are heterogeneous in construct and application. A fundamental framework with standardized terminology for the articulation of competency should be developed and validated so as to be accepted and adapted universally by health professionals in all-hazard emergency environment.

Observer-based tools for non-technical skills assessment in simulated and real clinical environments in healthcare: a systematic review

Background

Over the past three decades multiple tools have been developed for the assessment of non-technical skills (NTS) in healthcare. This study was designed primarily to analyse how they have been designed and tested but also to consider guidance on how to select them.

Objectives

To analyse the context of use, method of development, evidence of validity (including reliability) and usability of tools for the observer-based assessment of NTS in healthcare.

Design

Systematic review.

Data sources

Search of electronic resources, including PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, ERIC, PsycNet, Scopus, Google Scholar and Web of Science. Additional records identified through searching grey literature (OpenGrey, ProQuest, AHRQ, King’s Fund, Health Foundation).

Study selection

Studies of observer-based tools for NTS assessment in healthcare professionals (or undergraduates) were included if they: were available in English; published between January 1990 and March 2018; assessed two or more NTS; were designed for simulated or real clinical settings and had provided evidence of validity plus or minus usability. 11,101 articles were identified. After limits were applied, 576 were retrieved for evaluation and 118 articles included in this review.

Results

One hundred and eighteen studies describing 76 tools for assessment of NTS in healthcare met the eligibility criteria. There was substantial variation in the method of design of the tools and the extent of validity, and usability testing. There was considerable overlap in the skills assessed, and the contexts of use of the tools.

Conclusion

This study suggests a need for rationalisation and standardisation of the way we assess NTS in healthcare and greater consistency in how tools are developed and deployed.

Psychological aptitude for surgery: The importance of non-technical skills

INTRODUCTION

Psychological aptitude for surgery includes all the non-technical abilities that are necessary for the surgeons. However, differently from the other careers, these skills are not considered in the selection process and their role is definitively underestimated in the field of surgery. We perform a literature review of non-technical skills for surgery to identify their role and to understand how to train and evaluate these abilities among the surgeons.

RESULTS

Different methods have been presented for the evaluation and training of non-technical skills for surgeons; based on the model of aviation and anesthesia a wide range of simulated scenarios have been proposed to practice these aptitudes and abilities. Different behavioral markers systems have been developed for correct identification and definition of these skills, these can be used in the real surgical room and even learned and trained in the simulated operating theatre.

CONCLUSION

This article shows the importance of non-practical abilities in the surgical performance and in defining the aptitude for surgery. Learning these skills and introducing them in surgical education can be useful to improve the surgical performance.

Evaluating non-technical skills and mission essential competencies of pilots in military aviation environments

To develop and validate a classification of non-technical skills (NTS) in military aviation, a study was conducted, using data from real operations of F16 aircraft formations. Phase 1 developed a NTS classification based on the literature review (e.g. NOTECHS) and a workshop with pilots. The Non-TEChnical-MILitary-Skills (NOTEMILS) scheme was tested in Phase 2 in a series of Principal Component Analysis with data from After-Action-Review sessions (i.e. 900 records from a wide range of operations). The NTS were found to make a good prediction of Mission Essential Components (R² > 0.80) above the effect of experience. Phase 3 undertook a reliability analysis where three raters assessed the NOTEMILS scheme with good results (i.e. all r_wg > 0.80). To look into the consistency of classifications, another test indicated that, at least, two out of three raters were in agreement in over 70% of the assessed flight segments. Practitioner Summary: A classification scheme of Non-Technical Skills (NTS) was developed and tested for reliability in military aviation operations. The NTS scheme is a valuable tool for assessing individual and team skills of F-16 pilots in combat. It is noteworthy that the tool had a good capability of predicting Mission Essential Competencies.

Virtual reality simulation training for health professions trainees in gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Endoscopy has traditionally been taught with novices practicing on real patients under the supervision of experienced endoscopists. Recently, the growing awareness of the need for patient safety has brought simulation training to the forefront. Simulation training can provide trainees with the chance to practice their skills in a learner-centred, risk-free environment. It is important to ensure that skills gained through simulation positively transfer to the clinical environment. This updated review was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of virtual reality (VR) simulation training in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether virtual reality simulation training can supplement and/or replace early conventional endoscopy training (apprenticeship model) in diagnostic oesophagogastroduodenoscopy, colonoscopy, and/or sigmoidoscopy for health professions trainees with limited or no prior endoscopic experience.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following health professions, educational, and computer databases until 12 July 2017: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, BIOSIS Previews, CINAHL, AMED, ERIC, Education Full Text, CBCA Education, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Abstracts in New Technology and Engineering, Computer and Information Systems Abstracts, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. We also searched the grey literature until November 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised clinical trials comparing VR endoscopy simulation training versus any other method of endoscopy training with outcomes measured on humans in the clinical setting, including conventional patient-based training, training using another form of endoscopy simulation, or no training. We also included trials comparing two different methods of VR training.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility and methodological quality of trials, and extracted data on the trial characteristics and outcomes. We pooled data for meta-analysis where participant groups were similar, studies assessed the same intervention and comparator, and had similar definitions of outcome measures. We calculated risk ratio for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We calculated mean difference (MD) and standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes when studies reported the same or different outcome measures, respectively. We used GRADE to rate the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 18 trials (421 participants; 3817 endoscopic procedures). We judged three trials as at low risk of bias. Ten trials compared VR training with no training, five trials with conventional endoscopy training, one trial with another form of endoscopy simulation training, and two trials compared two different methods of VR training. Due to substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity across our four comparisons, we did not perform a meta-analysis for several outcomes. We rated the quality of evidence as moderate, low, or very low due to risk of bias, imprecision, and heterogeneity.Virtual reality endoscopy simulation training versus no training: There was insufficient evidence to determine the effect on composite score of competency (MD 3.10, 95% CI -0.16 to 6.36; 1 trial, 24 procedures; low-quality evidence). Composite score of competency was based on 5-point Likert scales assessing seven domains: atraumatic technique, colonoscope advancement, use of instrument controls, flow of procedure, use of assistants, knowledge of specific procedure, and overall performance. Scoring range was from 7 to 35, a higher score representing a higher level of competence. Virtual reality training compared to no training likely provides participants with some benefit, as measured by independent procedure completion (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.26; 6 trials, 815 procedures; moderate-quality evidence). We evaluated overall rating of performance (MD 0.45, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.75; 1 trial, 18 procedures), visualisation of mucosa (MD 0.60, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.00; 1 trial, 55 procedures), performance time (MD -0.20 minutes, 95% CI -0.71 to 0.30; 2 trials, 29 procedures), and patient discomfort (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.68 to 0.35; 2 trials, 145 procedures), all with very low-quality evidence. No trials reported procedure-related complications or critical flaws (e.g. bleeding, luminal perforation) (3 trials, 550 procedures; moderate-quality evidence).Virtual reality endoscopy simulation training versus conventional patient-based training: One trial reported composite score of competency but did not provide sufficient data for quantitative analysis. Virtual reality training compared to conventional patient-based training resulted in fewer independent procedure completions (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.74; 2 trials, 174 procedures; low-quality evidence). We evaluated performance time (SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.55 to 0.80; 2 trials, 34 procedures), overall rating of performance (MD -0.90, 95% CI -4.40 to 2.60; 1 trial, 16 procedures), and visualisation of mucosa (MD 0.0, 95% CI -6.02 to 6.02; 1 trial, 18 procedures), all with very low-quality evidence. Virtual reality training in combination with conventional training appears to be advantageous over VR training alone. No trials reported any procedure-related complications or critical flaws (3 trials, 72 procedures; very low-quality evidence).Virtual reality endoscopy simulation training versus another form of endoscopy simulation: Based on one study, there were no differences between groups with respect to composite score of competency, performance time, and visualisation of mucosa. Virtual reality training in combination with another form of endoscopy simulation training did not appear to confer any benefit compared to VR training alone.Two methods of virtual reality training: Based on one study, a structured VR simulation-based training curriculum compared to self regulated learning on a VR simulator appears to provide benefit with respect to a composite score evaluating competency. Based on another study, a progressive-learning curriculum that sequentially increases task difficulty provides benefit with respect to a composite score of competency over the structured VR training curriculum.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

VR simulation-based training can be used to supplement early conventional endoscopy training for health professions trainees with limited or no prior endoscopic experience. However, we found insufficient evidence to advise for or against the use of VR simulation-based training as a replacement for early conventional endoscopy training. The quality of the current evidence was low due to inadequate randomisation, allocation concealment, and/or blinding of outcome assessment in several trials. Further trials are needed that are at low risk of bias, utilise outcome measures with strong evidence of validity and reliability, and examine the optimal nature and duration of training.

Relationship between intraoperative non-technical performance and technical events in bariatric surgery

Background

The operating theatre is a unique environment with complex team interactions, where technical and non-technical performance affect patient outcomes. The correlation between technical and non-technical performance, however, remains underinvestigated. The purpose of this study was to explore these interactions in the operating theatre.

Methods

A prospective single-centre observational study was conducted at a tertiary academic medical centre. One surgeon and three fellows participated as main operators. All patients who underwent a laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and had the procedures captured using the Operating Room Black Box® platform were included. Technical assessment was performed using the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills and Generic Error Rating Tool instruments. For non-technical assessment, the Non-Technical Skills for Surgeons (NOTSS) and Scrub Practitioners' List of Intraoperative Non-Technical Skills (SPLINTS) tools were used. Spearman rank-order correlation and N-gram statistics were conducted.

Results

Fifty-six patients were included in the study and 90 procedural steps (gastrojejunostomy and jejunojejunostomy) were analysed. There was a moderate to strong correlation between technical adverse events (rs = 0·417–0·687), rectifications (rs = 0·380–0·768) and non-technical performance of the surgical and nursing teams (NOTSS and SPLINTS). N-gram statistics showed that after technical errors, events and prior rectifications, the staff surgeon and the scrub nurse exhibited the most positive non-technical behaviours, irrespective of operator (staff surgeon or fellow).

Conclusion

This study demonstrated that technical and non-technical performances are related, on both an individual and a team level. Valuable data can be obtained around intraoperative errors, events and rectifications.

Training Tools for Nontechnical Skills for Surgeons-A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Development of nontechnical skills for surgeons has been recognized as an important factor in surgical care. Training tools for this specific domain are being created and validated to maximize the surgeon's nontechnical ability. This systematic review aims to outline, address, and recommend these training tools.

DESIGN

A full and comprehensive literature search, using a systematic format, was performed on ScienceDirect and PubMed, with data extraction occurring in line with specified inclusion criteria.

SETTING

Systematic review was performed fully at King's College London.

RESULTS

A total of 84 heterogeneous articles were used in this review. Further, 23 training tools including scoring systems, training programs, and mixtures of the two for a range of specialities were identified in the literature. Most can be applied to surgery overall, although some tools target specific specialities (such as neurosurgery). Interrater reliability, construct, content, and face validation statuses were variable according to the specific tool in question.

CONCLUSIONS

Study results pertaining to nontechnical skill training tools have thus far been universally positive, but further studies are required for those more recently developed and less extensively used tools. Recommendations can be made for individual training tools based on their level of validation and for their target audience. Based on the number of studies performed and their status of validity, NOTSS and Oxford NOTECHS II can be considered the gold standard for individual- and team-based nontechnical skills training, respectively, especially when used in conjunction with a training program.

Strategies for increasing the feasibility of performance assessments during competency-based education: Subjective and objective evaluations correlate in the operating room

BACKGROUND

Competency-based education necessitates assessments that determine whether trainees have acquired specific competencies. The evidence on the ability of internal raters (staff surgeons) to provide accurate assessments is mixed; however, this has not yet been directly explored in the operating room. This study's objective is to compare the ratings given by internal raters vs an expert external rater (independent to the training process) in the operating room.

METHODS

Raters assessed general surgery residents during a laparoscopic cholecystectomy for their technical and nontechnical performance.

RESULTS

Fifteen cases were observed. There was a moderately positive correlation (r_s = .618, P = .014) for technical performance and a strong positive correlation (r_s = .731, P = .002) for nontechnical performance. The internal raters were less stringent for technical (mean rank 3.33 vs 8.64, P = .007) and nontechnical (mean rank 3.83 vs 8.50, P = .01) performances.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence to help operationalize competency-based assessments.