Key result
A specialty-specific tool for assessing non-technical skills in anaesthesia showed poor inter-rater agreement in the workplace (mean kappa 0.14-0.20) compared to controlled settings (kappa 0.61-0.69).
Observational (n=67)
Yes
Assessment tools for non-technical skills that perform reliably in controlled settings may not maintain reliability when used in the clinical workplace.
May caution against workplace use of controlled-setting tools; leaves open need for real-world validation in anaesthesia.
Non-technical skills are recognised as crucial to good anaesthetic practice. We designed and evaluated a specialty-specific tool to assess non-technical aspects of trainee performance in theatre, based on a system previously found reliable in a recruitment setting. We compared inter-rater agreement (multir-ater kappa) for live assessments in theatre with that in a selection centre and a video-based rater training exercise. Twenty-seven trainees participated in the first in-theatre assessment round and 40 in the second. Round- 1 scores had poor inter-rater agreement (mean kappa = 0.20) and low reliability (generalisability coefficient G = 0.50). A subsequent assessor training exercise showed good inter-rater agreement, (mean kappa = 0.79) but did not improve performance of the assessment tool when used in round 2 (mean kappa = 0.14, G = 0.42). Inter-rater agreement in two selection centres (mean kappa = 0.61 and 0.69) exceeded that found in theatre. Assessment tools that perform reliably in controlled settings may not do so in the workplace.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Crossingham et al. (2012) conducted an observational in Anaesthesia training (n=67). Workplace-based assessment tool vs. Controlled setting assessments was evaluated on Inter-rater agreement (mean kappa). A specialty-specific tool for assessing non-technical skills in anaesthesia showed poor inter-rater agreement in the workplace (mean kappa 0.14-0.20) compared to controlled settings (kappa 0.61-0.69).
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: