Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 1, 2025

Setting Up a Stroke Team Algorithm and Conducting Simulation-based Training in the Emergency Department - A Practical Guide
Published on: January 15, 2017
Adaptation of a Simulation Model and Checklist to Assess Pediatric Emergency Care Performance by Prehospital Teams
Tehnaz P Boyle1, Julianne N Dugas, James Liu
1From the Department of Pediatrics (T.P.B., B.M.W.), Boston Medical Center, Boston University School of Medicine; Department of Emergency Medicine (J.N.D., J.L., S.N.S., R.M., J.A.F.), Boston Medical Center, Boston University School of Medicine; Solomont Center for Simulation (T.P.B., S.N.S., R.M., B.M.W., P.C.), Boston Medical Center; Boston Emergency Medical Services (L.S., J.R.H., R.O.C., G.W.); Department of Biostatistics (K.P.N.), Boston University, Boston, MA; Center for Simulation, Advanced Education and Innovation (V.M.N.); Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine (V.M.N.); The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (V.M.N.), University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine (V.M.N.), Philadelphia, PA; and Department of Emergency Medicine (C.A.C.), Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Introduction:
Simulation tools to assess prehospital team performance and identify patient safety events are lacking. We adapted a simulation model and checklist tool of individual paramedic performance to assess prehospital team performance and tested interrater reliability.
Methods:
We used a modified Delphi process to adapt 3 simulation cases (cardiopulmonary arrest, seizure, asthma) and checklist to add remote physician direction, target infants, and evaluate teams of 2 paramedics and 1 physician. Team performance was assessed with a checklist of steps scored as complete/incomplete by raters using direct observation or video review. The composite performance score was the percentage of completed steps. Interrater percent agreement was compared with the original tool. The tool was modified, and raters trained in iterative rounds until composite performance scoring agreement was 0.80 or greater (scale <0.20 = poor; 0.21-0.39 = fair, 0.40-0.59 = moderate; 0.60-0.79 = good; 0.80-1.00 = very good).
Results:
We achieved very good interrater agreement for scoring composite performance in 2 rounds using 6 prehospital teams and 4 raters. The original 175 step tool was modified to 171 steps. Interrater percent agreement for the final modified tool approximated the original tool for the composite checklist (0.80 vs. 0.85), cardiopulmonary arrest (0.82 vs. 0.86), and asthma cases (0.80 vs. 0.77) but was lower for the seizure case (0.76 vs. 0.91). Most checklist items (137/171, 80%) had good-very good agreement. Among 34 items with fair-moderate agreement, 15 (44%) related to patient assessment, 9 (26%) equipment use, 6 (18%) medication delivery, and 4 (12%) cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality.
Conclusions:
The modified checklist has very good agreement for assessing composite prehospital team performance and can be used to test effects of patient safety interventions.
Related Concept Videos
Methods of Documentation VI: Case Management Model
For example, a patient with a chronic...
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation III: AED Use
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation II: ACLS Airway Management
SBAR II: Application of SBAR
SBAR Report from a Nurse to a Health Care Provider
S: "Hello, Dr. Smith. This is Jane, RN, from the Med Surg unit. I am calling to tell you about Ms. White in Room 210, who is experiencing increased pain and redness at her incision site. Her recent...
Assessment of Respiration
Subjective Assessment: Nurses interview the patient to gather information directly during the subjective assessment. It includes questions about the individual's medical history, medications, and symptoms, focusing on past respiratory conditions like...
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation I: Adult

