TITLE: Does teaching non-technical skills to medical students improve those skills
and simulated patient outcome?

  ABSTRACT.OBJECTIVES:
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effects of a tailor-made, non-technical
skills seminar on medical student's behaviour, attitudes, and performance during
simulated patient treatment.

ABSTRACT.METHODS:
Seventy-seven students were randomized to either a non-technical skills seminar (NTS
group, n=43) or a medical seminar (control group, n=34). The human patient simulation
was used as an evaluation tool. Before the seminars, all students performed the same
simulated emergency scenario to provide baseline measurements. After the seminars, all
students were exposed to a second scenario, and behavioural markers for evaluating their
non-technical skills were rated. Furthermore, teamwork-relevant attitudes were measured
before and after the scenarios, and perceived stress was measured following each
simulation. All simulations were also evaluated for various medical endpoints.

ABSTRACT.RESULTS:
Non-technical skills concerning situation awareness (p<.01, r=0.5) and teamwork
(p<.01, r=0.45) improved from simulation I to II in the NTS group. Decision making
improved in both groups (NTS: p<.01, r=0.39; control: p<.01, r=0.46). The attitude
'handling errors' improved significantly in the NTS group (p<.05,
r=0.34). Perceived stress decreased from simulation I to II in both groups. Medical
endpoints and patients ́ outcome did not differ significantly between the groups in
simulation II.

ABSTRACT.CONCLUSIONS:
This study highlights the effectiveness of a single brief seminar on non-technical
skills to improve student's non-technical skills. In a next step, to improve
student's handling of emergencies and patient outcomes, non-technical skills
seminars should be accompanied by exercises and more broadly embedded in the medical
school curriculum.

BODY.INTRODUCTION:
According to an evidence-based estimate, 400,000 preventable patient deaths occur annually
in US hospitals.1 In Germany, preventable
deaths in hospitals are five times more frequent than deadly traffic accidents, and up to
80% of adverse events in anaesthesiology are attributed to human errors, including team
performance breakdown.2 For reliable team
performance and to minimise human errors in medicine and other domains such as aviation,
non-technical skills (NTS) are essential.3-5
Feedback based on NTS rating systems for evaluating trainee surgeons' NTS and for improving
performance, for example, are perceived as highly valuable and useful by trainees and
supervisors.6 Accordingly, interventions such as "aeromedical" and
"anaesthesia crisis resource management" have been developed to improve
teamwork-relevant NTS (e.g., communication, decision making, situation awareness, or
adaptation) and to increase team performance and safety in high-responsibility teams
(HRTs).5,7-9
NTS comprise an individual's cognitive, attitudinal, and social skills that
supplement the individual's task work-related expertise.5 NTS-oriented interventions are instructional strategies for
HRTs to a) train the usage of all available resources efficiently (i.e., humans, equipment,
and information), b) enhance teamwork and thereby performance, and c) diminish the
likelihood of possible human error to mitigate consequences for humans or the
environment.10  Study findings have supported the effectiveness of NTS-oriented interventions in augmenting
teamwork competencies, e.g., in aviation, military, fire service, or medical teams on their
reactions, teamwork safety-relevant attitudes, knowledge, and behaviour.5,10-12
For example, a meta-analysis by Salas and colleagues reported positive effects of NTS
interventions on team member's reactions and teamwork safety-relevant attitudes.13  A meta-analysis conducted by O`Connor
and colleagues found support for these effects.12 The reported studies demonstrated positive effects of NTS
interventions on team member's reactions, teamwork safety-relevant attitudes and
behaviour. Medium-sized effects were found concerning safety-relevant knowledge gain.  Positive effects of teamwork competencies on team performance have also been demonstrated,
with medium to large effect sizes found regarding the positive effects of team process
behaviours on clinical performance measures such as task management, surgical complications,
operating time, or patient morbidity.14
Thus, NTS interventions support teamwork-relevant competence acquisition, and teamwork
competencies positively influence clinical performance.  In a novel attempt to unify their curricular targets, German medical faculties have
recently implemented the teaching of non-technical skills, and the German Association for
Medical Education has recently published a "Learning Objective Catalogue for Patient
Safety".15 However, limited data
exists regarding the suitability and effectiveness of NTS interventions for medical
students.  To assess positive seminar effects on teamwork competencies for this target group, the
widely used training evaluation hierarchy from Kirkpatrick (1998) is applied.16 This hierarchy categorises training
outcomes on four levels. The first level comprises the evaluation of
"reactions", such as subjectively perceived enjoyment and perceived usefulness
of the NTS seminar. The second level is "learning", and encompasses the
participant's attitudinal changes and knowledge gain after an NTS seminar. The third
level is "behavioural changes", and refers to the application of acquired
knowledge and skills to the job. The fourth level is "results", and refers to
the benefits for the organisation, such as successful patient treatment.  In light of the above, we investigated the effects of a single short NTS-oriented seminar
on medical student's reactions, teamwork, safety-relevant attitudes, and
non-technical skills as well as on simulated patient's outcome. Based on studies from
various occupational domains that found positive changes in team member's NTS after
receiving NTS training, we assume that medical students will also show a positive change
concerning their NTS after receiving an NTS seminar, whereas a medical seminar control group
will not show this improvement.5,8,10-13  Hypothesis 1: Medical students who receive an NTS seminar will have higher values
concerning their NTS after the seminar than before the seminar.  Based on previous study findings that demonstrated positive changes in team members'
safety-relevant attitudes after receiving NTS training, we also assume that medical students
will show a positive change concerning their teamwork safety-related attitudes after
receiving an NTS seminar, whereas the medical seminar control group will not show this
improvement.9-13  Hypothesis 2: Medical students who receive an NTS seminar will have higher values
concerning their teamwork safety-relevant attitudes after the seminar than before the
seminar.  As positive effects of teamwork competencies and NTS on team performance (e.g. surgical
complications, patient morbidity) have been demonstrated, we also assume that teaching NTS
will lead to a more successful patient treatment after the NTS seminar, as evidenced by a
comparison between the NTS seminar group and the medical seminar control group.14  Hypothesis 3: Medical students who receive an NTS seminar will show a better performance in
managing a simulated patient than those who receive a medical seminar.

BODY.METHODS:
This study explored the effects of an NTS seminar on student's behaviours during
simulations as well as medical endpoints and simulated patient's outcome.
Additionally, we analysed changes in teamwork-supporting attitudes and perceived stress
during both simulation scenarios. Data was collected from questionnaires, observations and
the simulator software.

BODY.METHODS.STUDY DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS:
This was a randomised, double-blind study with a pre-test-post-test design investigating
the usefulness of NTS seminars within medical education. It was randomised because at the
beginning of the semester, students were randomly assigned to either an NTS seminar group
or a medical seminar group by Dean's department. It was double-blind as the
students were unaware of their group allocation. Moreover, the investigators were also
unaware of the student's group allocation when they conducted behavioural
assessments during the simulations. The design was pre-test-post-test as we used a
baseline measurement at the beginning of the study and a follow-up measurement after the
NTS seminar. Thus, we were able to analyse effects over time. Based on the comparison
between the NTS seminar group and the medical seminar group, we were also able to analyse
between-group effects.  One hundred and four 4th-year medical students participating in a two-week course on
emergencies taught by the Department of Anaesthesiology & Intensive Care Medicine were
initially enrolled and randomly allocated to either an NTS seminar group or a control
group receiving a traditional medical seminar. Participation in the study was voluntary
and had no influence on successful participation in the two-week course. We obtained oral
and written informed consent from each participant, and all students received the complete
course contents regardless of study participation.  Thirteen participants had to be excluded from the analysis as they did not attend one of
the simulations, and a further fourteen participants were excluded as they either did not
attend one of the seminars or did not complete all questionnaires. Therefore, data from
seventy-seven participants were ultimately analysed. The students' mean age was
25.9 years (±3.5 SD, range: 21 to 39) and thirteen students had previous experience
working in the field of medicine (eight in nursing and five in emergency services).  All participating students completed the same simulated resuscitation scenario at the
beginning of the study, which served as baseline measurement in week one. The following
week, they attended either a 90-minute seminar entitled "Factors influencing
successful teamwork" (NTS group) or a medical seminar unrelated to the
non-technical skills to be tested ("concepts for mass-casualty incidents",
the control group, CG). On the subsequent two days, students were tested in a second
simulation (post-test measurements), an anaphylactic shock scenario. To ensure that no
student missed any lectures and no knowledge gaps existed, after study data sampling,
students of the control cohort attended the NTS seminar, while the NTS group was
instructed in mass-casualty incidents. The experimental design is depicted in Figure 1.  In detail, students were welcomed individually in week one and asked to complete a
questionnaire measuring teamwork safety-relevant attitudes (simulation scenario I at
baseline). Afterwards, each student was accompanied to the simulation room and
familiarised with the team (medical assistants performing to predefined standards) and
equipment and received standardised scenario information. Each student was observed and
videotaped through a one-way transparent window from a second room in order to assess NTS
and key medical interventions at baseline. After the simulation scenario, students
completed a second questionnaire measuring presence and perceived stress in simulation I.
Before leaving, students received a short debriefing regarding their performance. In week
two, NTS-group participants attended the NTS seminar (CG attended the medical seminar). At
the end of the seminar, each participant filled in the Training Evaluation Inventory for
assessing the seminar. On the following days, students participated in the second
simulation scenario (post-test measurement) and were observed and videotaped again (same
procedure as in simulation I). Subsequently, students completed questionnaires measuring
the presence and perceived stress in simulation II and the teamwork safety-relevant
attitudes. Again, students received a short debriefing.  The study was conducted at the Department of Anaesthesiology & Intensive Care
Medicine, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany and was
approved by the University's local institutional ethics committee in Essen in
September 2014.

BODY.METHODS.TREATMENT: THE NTS SEMINAR DESIGN:
In week two, students attended a 90-minute NTS seminar entitled "Factors
influencing successful teamwork", led by the same two instructors (two authors)
throughout the course. The seminar aimed to sensitise students for teamwork-supporting
behaviour and attitudes towards leadership and assertiveness as well as dealing with
mistakes and stress.17 Topics covered
included situation awareness18 and its
impact on teamwork, as well as shared mental models and strategies to improve them (e.g.,
loud verbalisation during work or debriefings) as prerequisites for team
coordination,19 communication as a
prerequisite for coordination (e.g., clear pronunciation and reconfirmation),20 and feedback rules. Students were also
familiarised with possible obstacles which might impair communication such as perception
and selectivity, and discussed rules for successful communication. The final exercise was
a type of demonstration-based learning technique considering observational learning
processes.21,22 "Observational (or
demonstration-based) learning is the process of acquiring knowledge, skills, and attitudes
(KSAs) through viewing examples of performance".21 The exercise required the students to point out successful and
less successful behaviours regarding reliable teamwork based on a video demonstrating
teamwork in a patient-handover situation between hospital staff and a helicopter emergency
medical service. The critical cues from the video were subsequently discussed and the
previously acquired competencies concerning the teamwork-supporting behaviour and
attitudes had to be consolidated. Successful and less successful behaviours were chosen in
the demonstration, as positive and negative models support the generalization of the
targeted behaviours.23

BODY.METHODS.DATA COLLECTION METHODS.THE SIMULATIONS:
A human patient simulator was used for assessing the student's behaviour. It was
placed in a mock patient wardroom next to a bed-ridden "roommate"
(manikin). With its integrated physiology software, this simulator allows for realistic
scenarios adjusted to medical actions such as endotracheal intubation, defibrillation,
or drug administration. Patient's comments, sounds, and vital signs were loaded
wirelessly while running the scenario. All medication and equipment required for
managing the simulated patient were provided. The scenarios were recorded using an
audio-visual recording system, which captures physiological data including event logs,
waveform displays, and annotations. Scenarios were developed and programmed by three of
the authors with a strong background in handling emergencies. One author operated the
simulator, the recording system and technical facilities.  Figure 1Outline and timeline of experimental set-up  In simulation I (10 minutes duration, pre-test measurement), a cardiovascular risk
patient with sudden unconsciousness and ventricular fibrillation was portrayed and
cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) according to ERC guidelines was required. The
simulator was programmed for a return of spontaneous circulation after the 4th
defibrillation attempt if correct CPR had been performed and adrenaline and amiodarone
had been administered.  In simulation II (10 minutes duration, post-test measurement) a young patient
recovering from surgery for radial fracture was portrayed.  Here, an anaphylactic
reaction to an antibiotic infusion was presented, which progressed to anaphylactic shock
if not treated early with adrenaline. Specifically, the simulation was escalated every 3
minutes to increasing symptoms (stage 1: coughing, itching; stage 2: worsening to
tachycardia and hypotension; stage 3: overt shock). Treatment with adrenaline was
necessary to improve the simulated patient's condition.

BODY.METHODS.DATA COLLECTION METHODS.NON-TECHNICAL SKILLS:
The Anaesthesia Non-Technical Skills (ANTS) observation system, including the four
categories situation awareness, task management, team working, and decision making, was
applied to assess the students' NTS during simulations I and II.24,25 The modified instrument for assessing Danish
anaesthesiologist's NTS (ANTSdk) was not applied, as the authors stress the
cultural specificity of this instrument. Denmark is considered a feminine society by
Hofstede, whereas Germany is not.26
Each category consists of 3-5 elements characterised by various behavioural markers for
good and poor performance (see Appendix A). The behavioural markers were adapted to the
simulation scenarios.  Two observers rated every student's behaviour. Due to the substantial number of
behavioural markers, each observer rated half of them. All elements and categories were
rated on a four-point scale from 0 to 3, i.e., from poor (performance endangered or
potentially endangered patient safety, serious remediation required) to good
(performance of consistently high standard, enhancing patient safety; could be used as a
positive example for others).25
Element ratings were averaged, resulting in ratings for each category.

BODY.METHODS.DATA COLLECTION METHODS.MEDICAL SKILLS:
The completion of key treatments and their timing was recorded for each scenario (see
Appendix B), e.g. "call for assistance", "application of
oxygen", "time to first chest compression", "time to
adrenaline administration", and "time to defibrillation". The
relevant outcomes were "return of spontaneous circulation" (yes/no) and
"resolution of anaphylaxis (yes/no)" in simulations I (CPR) and II,
respectively.

BODY.METHODS.DATA COLLECTION METHODS.TEAMWORK SAFETY-RELEVANT ATTITUDES:
A 20-item questionnaire was applied before simulation I and after simulation II with a
five-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (total disagreement) to 4 (total agreement). The
questionnaire was tailored to the target cohort and based on established
instruments.9,27-29 It covers eight of the most frequently investigated
safety-relevant attitudes, i.e. command roles and responsibilities (four items, e.g.,
'Team members should not question the decisions or actions of senior
staff', α=.72), speaking up (two items, e.g., 'I inform other team
members when my workload is too high', α=.56), debriefing (two items, e.g.,
'A regular debriefing of procedures and decisions after an emergency care is an
important part of teamwork', α=.42), feedback and critique (two items,
e.g., 'Disagreements in the team are appropriately resolved, i.e., it is not
'who' is right but what is best for the patient', α=.21),
realistic appraisal of stress (three items, e.g., 'Personal problems can
adversely affect my performance', α=.76), denial of stress (three items,
e.g., 'A professional doctor can hide personal problems during the whole
emergency care', α=.71), handling errors (two items, e.g., 'I am
more likely to make errors in tense or hostile situations', α=.69), and
teamwork (two items, e.g., 'I enjoy working in a team', α=.40).

BODY.METHODS.DATA COLLECTION METHODS.PRESENCE WITHIN THE SIMULATION SCENARIO:
The instrument "Presence for lab-based microworld research" (PLBMR) was
used to measure the immersion in the two scenarios.30 The questionnaire uses a six-point Likert scale from 0 (is not
true) to 5 (is fully true). An example item is 'I felt like I was part of the
simulation context' (Cronbach's α=.83).

BODY.METHODS.DATA COLLECTION METHODS.PERCEIVED STRESS:
Five items were developed to measure perceived stress (five-point Likert scale from 0
(total disagreement) to 4 (total agreement), e.g. 'In retrospect, during the
simulation scenario I worked up a sweat', Cronbach's α=.85).

BODY.METHODS.DATA COLLECTION METHODS.TRAINING EVALUATION INVENTORY:
The 17-item Training Evaluation Inventory (TEI) was applied to assess the
student's reactions and subjectively rated learning success after the NTS seminar
(five-point Likert scale from 1 to 5).31 It covers seminar outcomes based on the reaction level, which
included reported enjoyment (three items, e.g., 'I enjoyed learning',
α=.8), perceived difficulty (three items, e.g., 'I understood all technical
terms', α=.69), and perceived usefulness (four items, e.g., 'The
training is useful for my profession', α=.93).10,32-33 Additionally, the
learning level of Kirkpatrick's levels of evaluation is assessed.16 Learning is divided into knowledge
(three items, subjectively rated learning success, e.g., 'I think my knowledge
has been expanded in the long term', α=.66) and attitudes (three items,
e.g., 'I would recommend this training to my colleagues',
α=.87).

BODY.METHODS.DATA ANALYSIS:
To ensure that the NTS group and control group did not differ before the seminar
intervention, t-tests for unpaired samples were performed to detect significant
differences in demographic or study variables. The prerequisites concerning normal
distribution and homogeneity of variance (Levene's test) for the scales and groups
were met. To analyse changes over time and between groups regarding NTS and attitudes,
univariate analyses of variance with repeated measures were conducted. To analyse
differences between groups concerning simulated patient outcome, continuous values were
analysed by t-tests. If the assumption of normality was not met, the Mann-Whitney U test
was conducted. Categorical values (yes/no) were compared using a Chi-squared test.
Analyses were performed using SPSS, Version 23.0, and statistical significance was assumed
using an a priori alpha error less than 0.05. 

BODY.RESULTS:
Before presenting the results of the hypothesis-testing, descriptive data of study
variables are reported as well as the level of significance, to demonstrate that the study
results are not systematically influenced by previous differences between groups. The NTS
seminar group and the control group were comparable, as no significant differences in age,
semester, presence, stress, attitudes, and NTS at baseline (simulation I) were revealed, as
depicted in Appendix C.

BODY.RESULTS.TREATMENT CHECKS:
Presence and perceived stress during simulations: Group means and standard deviations
during simulation I (pre) and II (post) as well as the average over both groups (total)
are displayed in Table 1. Both groups showed a
moderate presence during both simulations (pre and post), without significant differences
between groups (p=.11), and the presence remained stable over time, as no changes from pre
to post were detected (p=.94). Both groups also showed a moderate level of stress during
simulations I and II, without significant differences between groups (p=.10). However,
perceived stress changed over time (F(1,75) = 10.11, p<.01,
η2p=0.12): T-tests for dependent samples revealed a significant
decrease from pre to post for the NTS group (t(42) = 2.19, p<.05, r=0.32)
and the control group (t(33) = 2.26, p<.05, r=0.37), with a small to medium
effect size.  Subjectively perceived outcomes of the NTS seminar were assessed by applying the Training
Evaluation Inventory scales regarding reaction and learning. The students assessed their
enjoyment (M=3.90, SD=0.85), their perceived usefulness of the seminar (M=3.98, SD=0.94)
and their acquired knowledge (M=3.75, SD=0.67) rather positively and considered the
seminar to be easy to follow (M=1.37, SD=0.42). Only the attitudes towards the contents of
the seminar (M=2.58, SD=0.71) were evaluated as moderate to negative. Overall, the seminar
was positively evaluated.   Table 1 Mean values and standard deviations regarding presence and perceived stress
concerning simulation I (pre) and II (post) Groups   Presence   Stress   M SD   M SD Total pre 3.41 ±1.02   2.82 ±0.49 post 3.40 ±1.06   2.58 ±0.56 NTS group pre 3.55 ±1.02   2.75 ±0.55 post 3.54 ±1.07   2.51 ±0.62 Control group pre 3.23 ±1.00   2.90 ±0.39 post 3.22 ±1.05   2.68 ±0.46 Note: Scale ranges from 0 to 5 for the presence and from 0 to 4 for stress. 

BODY.RESULTS.TESTING HYPOTHESIS 1: IMPACT OF NTS SEMINAR INTERVENTION ON NON-TECHNICAL SKILLS
DURING SIMULATIONS:
The results address whether the NTS of the NTS seminar group improved from simulation I
(before seminar intervention, pre) to simulation II (post), compared to the control group.
Mean values and standard deviations for all four NTS categories for both groups and both
performance assessments (pre and post) are displayed in Table 2.  Regarding situation awareness, the main effect for time of measurement was significant,
with situation awareness improving significantly from simulation I to II
(F(1,75) = 12.83, p<.01, η2p=0.51). Situation awareness
improved only in the NTS group (t(42) = -3.74, p<.01, r=0.50).
Team working improved significantly from pre- to post-test (F(1,75)
= 11.19, p<.01, η2p=0.13). The parameter estimation for simulation II
(post) showed a significant difference between the NTS and control group (p<.05).
T-tests for dependent samples showed a significant improvement from pre to post only for
the NTS group (t(42) = -3.27, p<.01, r=0.45). Regarding task
management, no significant effects were found. Regarding decision making, the main effect
for time of measurement was significant, with decision making improving significantly from
pre to post (F(1,75) = 16.48, p<.01, η2p=0.18). Results of
t-tests for dependent samples showed that both the NTS group (t(42)
= -2.75, p<.01, r=0.39) and the control group (t(33) = -3.00, p<.01,
r=0.46) improved significantly. Thus, hypothesis 1 was predominantly supported, as three
NTS changed significantly from simulation I to simulation II within the NTS group.

BODY.RESULTS.TESTING HYPOTHESIS 2: IMPACT OF NTS SEMINAR INTERVENTION ON TEAMWORK SAFETY-RELEVANT
ATTITUDES:
Data for 'command roles and responsibilities', 'speaking up',
'debriefing', 'feedback and critique', 'realistic
appraisal of stress', and 'denial of stress' showed no significant
effects between or within groups over time (.06<p<.81) (see Table 2). The attitude concerning 'Handling errors'
improved significantly within the NTS group from simulation I to II
(t(42) = -2.33, p< .05, r = 0.34), and did not improve overtime
in the control group (t(33) = -0.90, p=.37, r=0.15). 'Teamwork'
decreased significantly over time in the NTS group (t(42) = 2.26, p
= .03, r = 0.33), but not in the control group (t(33) = 1.15, p=.26, r=0.20).
Means and standard deviations for all attitudes for both groups and both simulations (pre
and post) are provided in Table 2. Thus, hypothesis
2 was not supported, as only one significant positive attitude change was detected within
the NTS group.   Table 2 Non-technical skills (NTS) and attitudes for simulation I (pre) and II
(post) Groups  Pre/ post  NTS Attitudes Means SD Means SD      Situation awareness  Command roles and
responsibilities NTS group pre 1.17 ±0.50 3.23 ±0.50 post 1.47 ±0.48 3.24 ±0.43 Control group pre 1.18 ±0.43 3.23 ±0.34 post 1.33 ±0.58 3.38 ±0.44     Team working Speaking up NTS group pre 1.37 ±0.57 2.81 ±0.71 post 1.63 ±0.36 2.85 ±0.60 Control group pre 1.31 ±0.53 2.75 ±0.68 post 1.43 ±0.43 2.82 ±0.57      Task management  Debriefing NTS group pre 1.40 ±0.65 3.71 ±0.40 post 1.50 ±0.52 3.57 ±0.52 Control group pre 1.30 ±0.56 3.56 ±0.53 post 1.43 ±0.54 3.59 ±0.54     Decision making Feedback and critique NTS group pre 0.90 ±0.58 3.63 ±0.54 post 1.15 ±0.48 3.58 ±0.76 Control group pre 0.85 ±0.58 3.59 ±0.56 post 1.15 ±0.49 3.76 ±0.50       Realistic appraisal of stress NTS group pre - - 2.76 ±0.86 post - - 2.88 ±0.82 Control group pre - - 2.74 ±0.59 post - - 2.54 ±0.84         Denial of stress * 
 NTS group pre - - 1.92 ±0.99 post - - 1.78 ±0.95 Control group pre - - 1.81 ±0.78 post - - 1.79 ±0.91         Handling errors NTS group pre - - 2.49 ±0.87 post - - 2.70 ±0.69 Control group pre - - 2.76 ±0.63 post - - 2.87 ±0.56         Teamwork NTS group pre - - 2.70 ±0.63 post - - 2.51 ±0.69 Control
group pre - - 2.71 ±0.64 post - - 2.60 ±0.69 Note: Scale for assessing NTS ranges from 0 to 3; and scale for assessing attitudes
ranges from 0 to 4; *Low values indicate a positive attitude. 

BODY.RESULTS.TESTING HYPOTHESIS 3: IMPACT OF NTS SEMINAR INTERVENTION ON SIMULATED PATIENT
OUTCOME:
Student`s management skills during a resuscitation scenario I (before the seminars) and
an anaphylactic shock scenario II (after the seminars) were assessed using videotapes of
154 simulations (77 students experiencing both scenarios) using predefined variables and
endpoints, e.g., "time until calling a chief resident or a resuscitation
team" or "time until return of spontaneous circulation".  All
results (either mean values and standard deviations or percentage, as well as levels of
significance) are presented in Table 3. The groups
were comparable at baseline (scenario I), as no significant differences between the groups
were detected. A comparison of results for simulation II did not reveal a significant
intervention effect on simulated medical outcomes. Hypothesis 3 was therefore not
supported. Neither the variable "patient ́s condition improved" nor
"time until patient ́s condition was improved" differed between groups
following the intervention (Table 3). In the
anaphylactic shock scenario, 60.5% (26 of 43) and 61.8% (21 of 34) of simulated patients
died in the NTS and control group, respectively, indicating that the scenario had been
properly calibrated to detect intervention effects if present.

BODY.DISCUSSION:
This study demonstrates a positive impact of a single NTS seminar on student's NTS
since only the student group that had received the NTS seminar improved significantly from
simulation I to II. Nevertheless, this did not translate into the students' teamwork
safety-relevant attitudes, and no statistically significant benefit was apparent regarding
simulated patient's medical outcome.  Overall, the students perceived the simulations as quite realistic and not too stressful.
The NTS seminar was well accepted, with the students rating their enjoyment and the
perceived usefulness very positively. Although they did not express a great deal of liking
for the seminar contents, this is not especially important regarding competence acquisition,
as the perceived usefulness is the most important predictor of motivation and intention to
apply learned knowledge and skills at work.31,32 The
students extended their knowledge regarding safety-relevant teamwork competencies, as 75% of
the NTS items improved significantly in students who had received the 90-minute NTS seminar,
including a demonstration-based learning approach. On decision making, the control
group's behaviour also improved significantly from simulation I to II. Since students
are not yet experts and still have to acquire technical knowledge, the effects of the NTS
seminar on their NTS are even more remarkable. In contrast, no significant influence of the
NTS seminar on teamwork safety-relevant attitudes was found between groups or over time.
However, the fact that not all assessed items showed significant results is not unusual, and
many studies addressing the impact of an NTS seminar on attitude changes have failed to find
significant effects.34  Our results show that a change in the student's behaviour, the NTS, occurred without
concurrent changes in their attitudes. Thus, Kirkpatrick's assumption of the
hierarchy of the four levels of evaluation is again disproved.35  In this study, we also tried to assess whether the NTS seminar was able to affect simulated
patient's medical outcomes due to better coordination and leadership behaviour during
teamwork, the fourth level in Kirkpatrick's model of evaluation. While simulated
patient outcomes (e.g. variables such as "patient ́s condition improved"
or "time until patient ́s condition was improved") did not differ between
groups in simulation II and were, therefore, unaffected by the NTS seminar intervention, we
observed deficits regarding medical treatment in both groups. About 60% of simulated
patients died in both groups. This lack of effect might be due to the students` limited
previous practical training to manage emergencies. Alternatively, the medical tasks required
to treat simulated patients in our scenarios successfully might have been too complex for
the students, although 4th-year medical students should have already acquired the proper
theoretical knowledge. Since the theoretical knowledge did not seem to have been transferred
to practice, the students' limited abilities may have masked any effect of the
acquired NTS on simulated patient treatment.   Table 3 Results of comparison between NTS group and control group regarding performance of
treatment steps in both simulation scenarios Resuscitation
scenario I Treatment steps NTS Group Control Group Significance  Call for help (yes/no)     Yes: 51.20% No: 48.80%   Yes: 35.30% No: 64.70%  χ 2 (1) = 1.94, p =
.16 Return of spontaneous circulation
(yes/no)  Yes: 39.50% No: 60.50%   Yes: 32.40% No: 67.60%  χ 2 (1) = 0.42, p =
.52 Time until emergency call(s) 303.00 ± 39.90 335.80 ± 41.20 U = 120.00, z = -0.43, p = .68 Time until first
defibrillation(s) 184.80 ± 8.60 178.40 ± 11.20 U = 698.50, z = .72, p = .47 Time until return of spontaneous
circulation(s) 435.00 ± 26.80 466.00 ± 21.50 t (26)  = 0.83, p =
.41 Anaphylactic
shock scenario II Treatment steps NTS Group Control Group Significance Call for help (yes/no)  Yes: 46.50% No: 53.50%   Yes: 23.50% No: 76.50 %  χ 2  (1) = 4.33, p =
.04 Provided oxygen therapy via
non-rebreathing mask (yes/no)  Yes: 93.00% No: 7.00%   Yes: 94.10% No: 5.90%  χ 2  (1) = 0.04, p =
.85 Adrenaline administration
(yes/no)  Yes: 48.80% No: 51.20%   Yes: 64.70% No: 35.30%  χ 2  (1) = 1.94, p =
.16 Antihistamine administration
(yes/no)  Yes: 69.80% No: 30.20%   Yes: 67.60% No: 32.40%  χ 2  (1) = 0.04, p =
.84 Initiation of blood volume expansion
therapy (yes/no)  Yes: 55.80% No: 44.10%   Yes: 67.60% No: 32.40%  χ 2  (1) = 1.12, p =
.29 Patient´s condition improved
(yes/no)  Yes: 39.50% No: 60.50%   Yes: 38.20% No: 61.80%  χ 2  (1) = 0.01, p =
.91 Time until emergency call(s) 318.40 ± 34.40 356.90 ± 49.90 t (27)  = 0.60, p =
.55 Time until oxygen
administration(s) 152.30 ± 17.20 153.50 ± 18.90 U = 623.50, z = 0.41, p = .69 Time until adrenaline
administration(s) 322.50 ± 20.80 336.60 ± 27.30 t (41) = 0.41, p = .69 Time until antihistamine
administration(s) 247.20 ± 18.70 189.60 ± 13.90 U = 470.50, z = 2.26, p = .02 Time until initiation of blood
volume expansion therapy(s) 219.00 ± 21.00 285.00 ± 21.00 U = 167.50, z = -2.31, p = .02 Time until
patient´s condition improved(s) 273.10
± 13.70 241.80
± 14.30 t (28) = -1.56, p = .13   Although no significant impact on patient outcomes was observed under the experimental
conditions chosen, our results are nevertheless meaningful, as such analyses are often
missing in non-technical skills training research.5 Possibly, if simulation training were extended and broadly
integrated into the student's medical curricula, NTS seminars might be more
effective.  As the NTS seminar, with duration of 90 minutes, was a rather short intervention, large
effects might not be expected. Furthermore, it was a knowledge-based NTS seminar with
demonstrated examples, and its learning goals were to enhance the student's knowledge
about teamwork-relevant skills. From training research, it is well known that
knowledge-based interventions do not, or only minimally, influence behaviour compared to
demonstration-based or practice-based interventions.36 It is therefore recommended that future studies analyse NTS
seminars of longer duration (possibly over two or more days) combined with practice sessions
to achieve both behavioural learning goals and a transfer concerning patient treatment. Such
simulations should be used not only to assess the student's behaviour but also as
practical training sessions including debriefings, as simulation-based learning enhances the
educational curriculum results such as clinical competency.37 A particular asset of our study regarding internal validity lies
in its randomised, blinded, and pre-test-post-test design as well as in the inclusion of an
NTS seminar group and a control group for analysing between-group effects.38 Unfortunately, this approach is often
lacking in studies addressing seminar or training effects.34,39,40

BODY.DISCUSSION.FUTURE RESEARCH:
Our findings suggest that studies which include simulation sessions as practice sessions
added to a single seminar design are desirable. This would enable an analysis of the
number of practice sessions required to affect behaviour and patient treatment. It would
also be interesting to analyse whether several simulation sessions including debriefings
are superior to an NTS seminar on patient outcome. Such a study design might show that
practical session and debriefed problem-based learning are required rather than
theoretical inputs such as seminars. If this is the case, an adapted medical school
curriculum might only contain well-designed and debriefed simulation sessions but no
knowledge-based seminars.  The simulation sessions, and possibly the particular scenarios, functioned as stressors
for the students. Since stress might enhance the retrieval of learned knowledge, but too
much stress might decrease memory capacity,41,42
future studies should determine suitable simulation scenarios for the respective student
cohorts so that the requirements do not overwhelm the student's abilities.
Furthermore, it might be desirable to measure cortisol concentrations as a more objective
biological indicator of the stress responses.  Finally, it seems prudent to analyse effects of a more extensive NTS training on the
performance of medical students when completing tasks of which they have better mastery.
In this respect, a study on medical students in their internship year would appear to be
most appropriate.

BODY.CONCLUSIONS:
In summary, although seminar-based NTS training demonstrated many positive sequelae, such
training without practice appears to be only partially effective, as the NTS seminar showed
no statistically significant improvement in simulated patient's outcome. However, if
such NTS courses are to be embedded into medical schools' standard curricula to
improve student's handling of emergencies, a curricular design that combines
practical simulation sessions with debriefings along with seminar sessions appears to be
crucial.

BODY.CONCLUSIONS.CONFLICTS OF INTEREST:
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Question: Compared to medical seminar what was the result of non-technical skills seminar on Decision making?
Evidence: Non-technical skills concerning situation awareness (p<.01, r=0.5) and teamwork
(p<.01, r=0.45) improved from simulation I to II in the NTS group. 
Answer: no significant difference