Page 311 - International Perspectives on Effective Teaching and Learning in Digital Education

Assessment Tools for Non-Technical Skills

evidence for tools used to assess NTS in multidisciplinary teams in simula-
tion-based clinical education.

Materials and Methods
For the purposes of the study, a scoping literature review was conducted to
compile relevant studies. A thematic analysis was then conducted to exami-
ne and categorise the main themes.

Method of Review
The literature search was conducted in the PubMed and Web of Science
databases. We used the following search terms: ‘interprofessional’, ‘interdis-
ciplinary’, ‘multiprofessional’, ‘multidisciplinary’, ‘team’, ‘non-technical skills’,
‘assessment tool’, ‘evaluation tool’, ‘medical education’, ‘nursing education’,
‘nursing student’, ‘medical student’, ‘healthcare’, ‘high fidelity simulation’, ‘pa-
tient simulation’ and ‘simulation training’. We combined these search terms
using the Boolean operators ‘OR’ and ‘AND’, which produced the final results.
The search was conducted in June 4 and was limited to original, peer-re-
viewed scientific articles in English that were indexed between 1 January 13
and 31 December 3. These articles involved interprofessional healthcare
teams composed of professionals or students from different healthcare pro-
fessions (e.g. nurses, gynaecologists, respiratory therapists).

Review Results
Figure 1 shows the literature search and selection process according to the
PRISMA methodology (Page et al., 1). The initial search retrieved 138 re-
cords. Prior to screening, 31 duplicates were removed, 17 records were
screened by title and abstract and 39 by full text. Finally, 1 articles were in-
cluded in the detailed literature analysis.
The literature was selected on the basis of a rigorous assessment of the rel-
evance and quality of the articles in question. The quality of the articles was
assessed using critical appraisal tools developed by the Joanna Briggs Insti-
tute (JBI): the JBI Checklist for Quasi-Experimental Studies and the JBI Check-
list for Cohort Studies. The articles were initially assessed by two researchers.
In the event of disagreement, the third and fourth authors were consulted
to resolve the differences. Each article was assigned a grade on a four-point
scale: inadequate, sufficient (C), good (B) and excellent (A). Following the as-
sessment of article quality, six studies were categorised as good quality and
four as excellent quality.

311