Table 1 Characteristics of the instruments used to measure SA in HCPs and description of the included studies
Instrument name | Type of measure | Number of subscales | Total items | Response Options | Reference country | Study participants | Setting (clinical vs. simulation) | Measurement properties |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Situation Awareness Global Assessment Technique (SAGAT) | NR | 3 | 39 | NR | Dishman et al., 2020 [9] USA | 49 Nurse anesthetists 7 experts | Simulation (scenario of induction of general anesthesia) | Content validity |
Open-ended questions | 3 | Correct 1, Incorrect 0, Partial correct 0.5 | Gardner et al., 2017 [17] USA | 43 medical students | Simulation (advanced Cardiac life support scenarios) | Criterion validity | ||
Pen-and-paper version of the instrument | 31 | Yes/No for level 1; 2 possible answers for level 3 | Lavoie et al., 2016 [18] Canada | 234 nursing students 15 critical care experts | Simulation (patient deterioration simulation scenario) | Content validity Internal consistency | ||
Pen-and-paper version of the instrument | 7 | Answers were based on factual aspects and expert opinion | Hogan et al., 2006 [19] Canada | 16 surgeons and residents | Simulation (human patient Simulator and trauma scenarios) | Content validity Internal consistency Convergent validity | ||
Team resuscitation situation awareness tool | Observational checklist | 7 | 7 | 5-point Likert scale: | O'Neill et al., 2018 [20] Canada | 42 teams and 242 HCPS (physicians and nurses) 13 experts | Simulation (simulated pediatric resuscitation events) | Content validity Inter-rater reliability Criterion validit |
Team Situation Awareness Global Assessment Technique (TSAGAT) | Observational checklist | 3 | 50 | 3-point Likert scale | Crozier et al., 2015 [21] Canada | 12 HCPS (physicians, nurses and students) 2 independent raters | Simulation (trauma resuscitation scenarios using HPS) | Convergent validity Known-groups validity Inter-rater reliability |
Situation awareness (SA) assessment tool | Observational checklis | 3 | 14 | NR | Frere et al., 2017 [8] Ireland | 2 expert raters | Simulation (OSCE in 9 medical specialties) | Internal consistency Inter-rater reliability |
Non-Technical Skills for Surgeons tool (NOTSS) | Observational checklist | 4 | 12 | 4-point rating Scale | Jung et al., 2020 [22] Canada | 5 experts | Clinical (observing recordings of actual OR) | Known-groups validity Inter-rater reliability |
Yule et al., 2018 [23] UK-USA | 255 surgeons in 2 groups | Simulation (video-based simulated crisis scenario) | Structural validity Internal consistency Criterion validity | |||||
Crossley et al., 2011 [24] UK | 85 surgeons 100 assessor | Clinical (OR) | Content validity Structural validity Internal consistency | |||||
Non-Technical Skills for Surgeons (NOTSS) tool | 5 | 14 | Yule et al., 2008 [25] UK | 44 surgeons | Simulation (video-based simulated scenario) | Internal consistency Inter-rater reliability | ||
Yule et al., 2006 [26] UK | Clinical (OR) | Development Study | ||||||
Non-Technical Skills for Urological Surgeons (NoTSUS) | Observational checklist | 5 | 13 | 5-point Likert scale | Aydın et al., 2020 [27] UK | 43 trainees and 19 specialists 5 expert raters | Simulation (the full immersion simulation ‘Igloo’ environment) | Criterion validity Inter-rater reliability |
Anesthetists' Non-Technical Skills System (ANTS) | Observational checklist | 4 | 15 | 4-point rating scale | Fletcher et al., 2003 [28] UK | 50 anesthetists | Simulation (simulated anesthetic scenarios) | Content validity Internal consistency Inter-rater reliability |
Anesthetists' Non-Technical Skills System (ANTS) | Observational checklist | 4 | 15 | 4-point rating scale | Graham et al., 2010 [29] Australia | 26 anesthetists | Clinical (videos of real-time and routine anesthesia) | Internal consistency Inter-rater reliability |
Anaesthetic Non-technical Skills for Anesthetic Practitioners System (ANTS-AP) | Observational checklist | 3 | 9 | 4-point rating scale | Rutherford et al.,2015 [30] UK | 48 anesthetic practitioners | Simulation (Simulated anesthetic scenarios in OR | Content validity Internal consistency Reliability Inter-rater reliability |
Trauma Non-Technical Skills (T-NOTECHS) tool | Observational checklist | 5 | 5 | 5-point scale | van Maarseveen et al., 2020 [31] Netherland | 18 recorded videos of resuscitations team 3 assessors | Clinical (trauma center) | Reliability Inter-rater reliability |
Steinemann et al.,2012 [32] USA | 44 observations for simulated and 48 for actual resuscitations by 2–3 raters | Both clinical and simulation setting | Development Study Inter-rater reliability | |||||
Oxford Non-Technical Skills scale (NOTECHS) | Observational checklist | 4 | 16 | 4-point rating scale | Mishra et al., 2009 [33] UK | 65 OR teams 2–3 expert raters | Clinical (OR) | Content validity Reliability convergent validity Inter-rater reliability |
Oxford Non-Technical Skills scale (NOTECHS II) | 8-point rating scale | Robertson et al.,2014 [34] UK | 297 OR members | Clinical (OR) | Content validity Known-groups validity Inter-rater reliability | |||
Interpersonal and Cognitive Assessment for Robotic Surgery rating system (ICARS) | Observational checklist | 4 | 28 | 5-point rating scale | Raison et al., 2017 [35] UK | 16 expert surgeons 73 surgeons | Simulation (ureterovesical anastomosis within a simulated OR) | Content validity Internal consistency Inter-rater reliability |
Explicit professional oral communication tool (EPOC) | Observational checklist | 6 | 35 | NR | Kemper et al., 2013 [36] Netherland | 378 ED members 1144 ICU members 2 independent observers | Clinical (ED and ICU) | Measurement error Inter-rater reliability |
Scrub Practitioners’ List of Intraoperative Non-Technical Skills (SPLINTS) | Observational checklist | 3 | 9 | 4-point Likert scale | Loh et al., 2019 [37] Singapore | 30 scrub nurses 10 expert raters | Clinical (OR) | Content validity Internal consistency Reliability Convergent validity Inter-rater reliability |
Binary scale | Mitchell et al., 2012 [38] UK | 25 scrub nurses 9 surgeons | NR | Development Study | ||||
Ottawa Global Rating Scale (GRS) | Observational checklist | 8 | 8 | 7-point rating scale | Kim et al., 2006 [39] Canada | 59 medical residents 3 raters | Simulation (ICU; ED; PACU) | Content validity Internal consistency Inter-rater reliability |