Teaching team competencies within resuscitation training: A systematic review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of life support training with specific emphasis on team competencies on clinical and educational outcomes. Methods: This systematic review was prospectively registered (PROSPERO CRD42023473154) and followed the PICOST (population, intervention, comparison, outcome, study design, timeframe) format. All randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies evaluating learners undertaking life support training with specific emphasis on team competencies in any setting (actual and simulated resuscitations) were included. Unpublished studies were excluded. Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases as well as trial registries were searched from inception to August 2023 (updated January 18, 2024). Two researchers performed title and abstract screening, full-text screening, data extraction, assessment of risk of bias (using RoB2 and ROBINS-I) and certainty of evidence (using GRADE). PRISMA reporting checklist was used to report the results. No funding was obtained to perform this systematic review. Results: The literature search identified 5470 manuscripts. After the removal of 2073 duplicates, reviewing the remaining articles' titles and abstracts yielded 31 articles for full-text review. Of these, 17 studies were finally included. The studies involved the following training levels: basic life support, adult advanced life support, paediatric and neonatal resuscitations. Most studies (n = 16) evaluated outcomes in simulated, and only one study in actual resuscitations. Studies included in all training contexts showed either neutrality and/or benefits of life support training with specific emphasis on team competencies. Team competencies training improved CPR skill performance and CPR quality. Specific team competencies that improved included leadership, communication, decision-making and task management. No undesirable effects were observed. Meta-analysis was not possible due to significant methodological heterogeneity. Sub-group analysis was impossible due to lack of data. Risk of bias assessment ranged from some concerns to serious. Overall certainty of evidence was rated as low to very low due to risk of bias and imprecision. Conclusion: This systematic review identified very low and low certainty evidence, almost entirely derived from simulation studies. The studies and their findings were heterogenous but suggest that teaching team competencies can improve resuscitation skills performance and CPR quality, as well as improve team competencies, specifically leadership, communication, decision-making, and task management. Further research is required to understand optimal configuration of team competencies training interventions and to understand the effect on clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,018 | 0,065 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,013 | 0,010 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,009 | 0,011 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».