The Development of an Assessment Rubric for the Core and Contingency Team Interaction Among Rapid Response Teams.

Abstract

Teamwork training is critical in the development of high-functioning rapid response teams (RRT). Rapid response teams involve interactions between a patient's core care team and a hospital contingency team, which can lead to disorganized and unsafe resuscitations, largely due to problems with communication and information dissemination. An extensive literature search found no assessment tools specific to the unique communicative challenges of an RRT, and thus, this study sought to develop an assessment rubric validated for training RRTs. This study elucidates the development, implementation, and testing of an RRT rubric based on Kane's framework for validating testing instruments. Twenty-four inpatient code teams underwent team training using a Team Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance and Patient Safety (TeamSTEPPS) didactic, an online module on the TeamSTEPPS RRT program, and a subsequent presimulation and postsimulation experience. Two raters were randomized to give a bedside assessment for each team using the proposed RRT rubric. Simulation scores were assessed with Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Interrater reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients. These analyses were then used to argue Kane's scoring, generalization, and extrapolation inferences. All teams significantly improved from the presimulation to postsimulation scenarios across all TeamSTEPPS domains. Content validity was obtained from 5 resuscitation experts with a scale-level content validity index of 0.9, with individual content validity index of 0.8 to 1.0. Intraclass correlation coefficient for "pre" scores were 0.856 (n = 24, P < 0.001), "post" scores of 0.738 (n = 24, P < 0.001), and a total of 0.890 (n = 48, P < 0.001). The authors argue for the validity of a new RRT rubric based off Kane's framework, with a specific focus on teamwork training to improve coordination and function of core and contingency teams. A follow-up study with longitudinal data along with external validation of this rubric is needed.