Development of a Simulation-Based Interprofessional Teamwork Assessment Tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Milestone projects required each specialty to identify essential skills and develop means of assessment with supporting validity evidence for trainees. Several specialties rate trainees on a milestone subcompetency related to working in interprofessional teams. A tool to assess trainee competence in any role on an interprofessional team in a variety of scenarios would be valuable and suitable for simulation-based assessment. OBJECTIVE: We developed a tool for simulation settings that assesses interprofessional teamwork in trainees. METHODS: In 2015, existing tools that assess teamwork or interprofessionalism using direct observation were systematically reviewed for appropriateness, generalizability, adaptability, ease of use, and resources required. Items from these tools were included in a Delphi method with multidisciplinary pediatrics experts using an iterative process from June 2016 to January 2017 to develop an assessment tool. RESULTS: Thirty-one unique tools were identified. A 2-stage review narrowed this list to 5 tools, and 81 items were extracted. Twenty-two pediatrics experts participated in 4 rounds of Delphi surveys, with response rates ranging from 82% to 100%. Sixteen items reached consensus for inclusion in the final tool. A global 4-point rating scale from novice to proficient was developed. CONCLUSIONS: A novel tool to assess interprofessional teamwork for individual trainees in a simulated setting was developed using a systematic review and Delphi methodology. This is the first step to establish the validity evidence necessary to use this tool for competency-based assessment.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".