MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Use of Human Patient Simulation and the Situation Awareness Global Assessment Technique in Practical Trauma Skills Assessment

2006· article· en· W1986625010 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Situation awareness (SA) is defined as the perception of elements in the environment within a volume of time and space, the comprehension of their meaning, and the projection of their status in the near future. This construct is vital to decision making in intense, dynamic environments. It has been used in aviation as it relates to pilot performance, but has not been applied to medical education. The most widely used objective tool for measuring trainee SA is the Situation Awareness Global Assessment Technique (SAGAT). The purpose of this study was to design and validate SAGAT for assessment of practical trauma skills, and to compare SAGAT results to traditional checklist style scoring. METHODS: Using the Human Patient Simulator, we designed SAGAT for practical trauma skills assessment based on Advanced Trauma Life Support objectives. Sixteen subjects (four staff surgeons, four senior residents, four junior residents, and four medical students) participated in three scenarios each. They were assessed using SAGAT and traditional checklist assessment. A questionnaire was used to assess possible confounding factors in attaining SA and overall trainee satisfaction. RESULTS: SAGAT was found to show significant difference (analysis of variance; p < 0.001) in scores based on level of training lending statistical support to construct validity. SAGAT was likewise found to display reliability (Cronbach's alpha 0.767), and significant scoring correlation with traditional checklist performance measures (Pearson's coefficient 0.806). The questionnaire revealed no confounding factors and universal satisfaction with the human patient simulator and SAGAT. CONCLUSIONS: SAGAT is a valid, reliable assessment tool for trauma trainees in the dynamic clinical environment created by human patient simulation. Information provided by SAGAT could provide specific feedback, direct individualized teaching, and support curriculum change. Introduction of SAGAT could improve the current assessment model for practical trauma education.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.414 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it