Reliability and validity testing of team emergency assessment measure in a distributed team context.

Medical multi-professional teams are increasingly collaborating via telemedicine. In distributed team settings, members are geographically separated and collaborate through technology. Developing improved training strategies for distributed teams and finding appropriate instruments to assess team performance is necessary. The Team Emergency Assessment Measure (TEAM), an instrument validated in traditional collocated acute-care settings, was tested for validity and reliability in this study when used for distributed teams. Three raters assessed video recordings of simulated team training scenarios (n = 18) among teams with varying levels of proficiency working with a remotely located physician via telemedicine. Inter-rater reliability, determined by intraclass correlation, was 0.74-0.92 on the TEAM instrument's three domains of leadership, teamwork, and task management. Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) ranged between 0.89-0.97 for the various domains. Predictive validity was established by comparing scores with proficiency levels. Finally, concurrent validity was established by high correlations, >0.92, between scores in the three TEAM domains and the teams' overall performance. Our results indicate that TEAM can be used in distributed acute-care team settings and consequently applied in future-directed learning and research on distributed healthcare teams.

Pre-operative point-of-care assessment of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction, an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction is an acknowledged peri-operative risk factor that should be identified before surgery. This study aimed to evaluate a simplified echocardiographic method using e' and E/e' for identification and grading of diastolic dysfunction pre-operatively. METHODS: Ninety six ambulatory surgical patients were consecutively included to this prospective observational study. Pre-operative transthoracic echocardiography was conducted prior to surgery, and diagnosis of LV diastolic dysfunction was established by comprehensive and simplified assessment, and the results were compared. The accuracy of e'-velocities in order to discriminate patients with diastolic dysfunction was established by calculating accuracy, efficiency, positive (PPV) and negative predictive (NPV) values, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). RESULTS: Comprehensive assessment established diastolic dysfunction in 77% (74/96) of patients. Of these, 22/74 was categorized as mild dysfunction, 43/74 as moderate dysfunction and 9/74 as severe dysfunction. Using the simplified method with e' and E/e', diastolic dysfunction was established in 70.8% (68/96) of patients. Of these, 8/68 was categorized as mild dysfunction, 36/68 as moderate dysfunction and 24/68 as severe dysfunction. To discriminate diastolic dysfunction of any grade, e'-velocities (mean < 9 cm s- 1) had an AUROC of 0.901 (95%CI 0.840-0.962), with a PPV of 55.2%, a NPV of 90.9% and a test efficiency of 0.78. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that a simplified approach with tissue Doppler e'-velocities may be used to rule out patients with diastolic dysfunction pre-operatively, but together with E/e' ratio the severity of diastolic dysfunction may be overestimated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, Identifier: NCT03349593 . Date of registration 21/11/2017. https://clinicaltrials.gov .

Preoperative Point-of-Care Assessment of Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction With Transthoracic Echocardiography.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction is an acknowledged perioperative risk factor and should be identified before surgery. Conventional echocardiographic assessment of LV ejection fraction (LVEF) obtained by biplane LV volumes is the gold standard to detect LV systolic dysfunction. However, this modality needs extensive training and is time consuming. Hence, a feasible point-of-care screening method for this purpose is warranted. The aim of this study was to evaluate 3 point-of-care echocardiographic methods for identification of LV systolic dysfunction in comparison with biplane LVEF. METHODS: One hundred elective surgical patients, with a mean age of 63 ± 12 years and body mass index of 27 ± 4 kg/m2, were consecutively enrolled in this prospective observational study. Transthoracic echocardiography was conducted 1-2 hours before surgery. LVEF was obtained by automatic two-dimensional (2D) biplane ejection fraction (EF) software. We evaluated if Tissue Doppler Imaging peak systolic myocardial velocities (TDISm), anatomic M-mode E-point septal separation (EPSS), and conventional M-mode mitral annular plane systolic excursion (MAPSE) could discriminate LV systolic dysfunction (LVEF <50%) by calculating accuracy, efficiency, correlation, positive (PPV) respective negative predictive (NPV) values, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for each point-of-care method. RESULTS: LVEF<50% was identified in 22% (21 of 94) of patients. To discriminate an LVEF <50%, AUROC for TDISm (mean <8 cm/s) was 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-0.84; P < .001), with a PPV of 47% and an NPV of 90%. EPSS with a cutoff value of >6 mm had an AUROC 0.89 (95% CI, 0.80-0.98; P < .001), with a PPV of 67% and an NPV of 96%. MAPSE (mean <12 mm) had an AUROC 0.80 (95% CI, 0.70-0.90; P < 0.001) with a PPV of 57% and an NPV of 98%. CONCLUSIONS: All 3 point-of-care methods performed reasonably well to discriminate patients with LVEF <50%. The clinician may choose the most suitable method according to praxis and observer experience.

[Examination of future colleagues: We need an assessment culture]. / Att examinera blivande kollegor: Vi behöver en bedömningskultur.

How do we know that the newly graduated student have the competencies required to work as a doctor? Assessments are an integral part of a medical program and are also required to be specified in the syllabi. High-quality assessments are in line with both learning outcomes and content of the courses. Complex learning outcomes require different assessment methods, multiple examiners, and psychometric analysis of the results. Further, the assessment criteria have to be known in advance, and feedback to students should be mandatory. It has to be remembered that the most important tool is the assessor himself, rather than the tools used in the assessment. Teachers need education in assessment. A coherent assessment system helps to create blueprint templates and make it possible to assess progression during the education. The link between examinations and patient safety is critical. We will not get a good education and safer care for our patients without creating an assessment culture.