Resuscitation
Volume 81, Issue 4 , Pages 446-452, April 2010

Rating medical emergency teamwork performance: Development of the Team Emergency Assessment Measure (TEAM)☆

  • Simon Cooper

      Affiliations

    • School of Nursing and Midwifery, Monash University, Gippsland Campus, Churchill, Victoria 3842, Australia
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +61 3 5122 6627; fax: +61 3 9902 6527.
    • ,
  • Robyn Cant

      Affiliations

    • School of Nursing and Midwifery, Monash University, Gippsland Campus, Churchill, Victoria 3842, Australia
    • ,
  • Joanne Porter

      Affiliations

    • School of Nursing and Midwifery, Monash University, Gippsland Campus, Churchill, Victoria 3842, Australia
    • ,
  • Ken Sellick

      Affiliations

    • School of Nursing and Midwifery, Monash University, Gippsland Campus, Churchill, Victoria 3842, Australia
    • ,
  • George Somers

      Affiliations

    • Gippsland Medical School, Monash University, Victoria 3552, Australia
    • ,
  • Leigh Kinsman

      Affiliations

    • School of Rural Health, Monash University, PO Box 666, Bendigo, Victoria 3552, Australia
    • ,
  • Debra Nestel

      Affiliations

    • Gippsland Medical School, Monash University, Victoria 3552, Australia

Received 19 August 2009; received in revised form 28 October 2009; accepted 25 November 2009. published online 01 February 2010.

Abstract 

Aim

To develop a valid, reliable and feasible teamwork assessment measure for emergency resuscitation team performance.

Background

Generic and profession specific team performance assessment measures are available (e.g. anaesthetics) but there are no specific measures for the assessment of emergency resuscitation team performance.

Methods

(1) An extensive review of the literature for teamwork instruments, and (2) development of a draft instrument with an expert clinical team. (3) Review by an international team of seven independent experts for face and content validity. (4) Instrument testing on 56 video-recorded hospital and simulated resuscitation events for construct, consistency, concurrent validity and reliability and (5) a final set of ratings for feasibility on fifteen simulated ‘real time’ events.

Results

Following expert review, selected items were found to have a high total content validity index of 0.96. A single ‘teamwork’ construct was identified with an internal consistency of 0.89. Correlation between the total item score and global rating (rho 0.95; p<0.01) indicated concurrent validity. Inter-rater (k 0.55) and retest reliability (k 0.53) were ‘fair’, with positive feasibility ratings following ‘real time’ testing. The final 12 item (11 specific and 1 global rating) are rated using a five-point scale and cover three categories leadership, teamwork and task management.

Conclusion

In this primary study TEAM was found to be a valid and reliable instrument and should be a useful addition to clinicians’ tool set for the measurement of teamwork during medical emergencies. Further evaluation of the instrument is warranted to fully determine its psychometric properties.

Keywords: Resuscitation, Teamwork, Nontechnical skills, Assessment

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

☆ A Spanish translated version of the abstract of this article appears as Appendix in the final online version at doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2009.11.027.

PII: S0300-9572(09)00633-9

doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2009.11.027

Resuscitation
Volume 81, Issue 4 , Pages 446-452, April 2010

Article Tools