NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
Hsu EB, Jenckes MW, Catlett CL, et al. Training of Hospital Staff to Respond to a Mass Casualty Incident. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2004 Jul. (Evidence Reports/Technology Assessments, No. 95.)
This publication is provided for historical reference only and the information may be out of date.
Section III: Representativeness of Targeted Hospital Staff | ||||
For each question, circle one response. | ||||
1. Were detailed descriptions of subjects provided? | ||||
a. | Adequate | (Detailed description, e.g., number of doctors, number of nurses, etc.) | 2 | |
b. | Fair | (Some general description, e.g., professionals involved) | 1 | |
c. | Indequate | (Minimal description or none at all, e.g., disaster team) | 0 | |
2. Were the setting and department(s) described? | ||||
a. | Adequate | (Setting and departments described in sufficient detail to replicate) | 2 | |
b. | Fair | (Setting OR departments NOT reported OR poor descriptions) | 1 | |
c. | Inadequate | (Neither specified) | 0 | |
Section IV: Bias and Confounding | ||||
For each question, circle one response. | ||||
3. Was there a comparison group? | ||||
a. | Adequate | (Concurrent and similar group) | 2 | |
b. | Fair | (Non-concurrent OR non-similar) | 1 | |
c. | Inadequate | (Non-concurrent and non-similar) | 0 | |
d. | None | Skip to item 7 | ||
4. Was assignment of study groups randomized? | ||||
a. | Yes | 2 | ||
b. | No | 0 | ||
c. | Unclear | 0 | ||
5. Did the education intervention groups have any important differences on key factors at baseline? | ||||
Key Factors: | ||||
Profession (e.g., Nurses, Emergency Medical Technicians, Doctors) | ||||
Specialty (e.g., Emergency Medicine, Internal Medicine, Pediatrics) | ||||
a. | Groups equivalent in all key factors | 2 | ||
b. | Groups have minor difference in 1 factor | 1.5 | ||
c. | Groups have major difference in 1 factor or minor differences in more than 1 factor | 1 | ||
d. | No information about groups' characteristics or inadequate to compare | 0 | ||
6. Was there any intervention other than the educational intervention of interest that differed between groups? | ||||
a. | Yes | 0 | ||
b. | No | 2 | ||
c. | Unclear | 0 | ||
Section V: Description of Intervention | ||||
For each question, circle one response. | ||||
7. Are the objectives of the intervention clearly stated in specific measurable terms? | ||||
a. | Adequate | (Objectives clearly stated in measurable terms) | 2 | |
b. | Fair | (Objectives stated but not stated in specific measurable terms) | 1 | |
c. | Inadequate | (Objectives not stated) | 0 | |
8. Did the objectives of the intervention specifically take into consideration knowledge, beliefs/attitudes, skills, behaviors, or clinical outcomes? | ||||
a. | Adequate | (Considers any 3 of 5) | 2 | |
b. | Fair | (Considers 1 or 2 of 5) | 1 | |
c. | Inadequate | (Considers none of the above) | 0 | |
9. Was there a complete description of the educational methods, content, resources, and organization of the educational intervention? | ||||
a. | Adequate | (Intervention could be replicated given the completeness of description) | 2 | |
b. | Fair | (Some detail but insufficient to ensure replication) | 1 | |
c. | Inadequate | (No detail) | 0 | |
10. Were the key people measuring the educational outcomes appropriately masked to intervention? | ||||
a. | Yes | 2 | ||
b. | No | 0 | ||
c. | Unclear | 0 | ||
Section VI: Outcomes of the Educational Intervention | ||||
For each question, circle one response. | ||||
11. Outcomes of the educational intervention were based upon: | ||||
a. | Pre- and post-intervention evaluation | 2 | ||
b. | Post-intervention evaluation | 1 | ||
c. | Neither pre- nor post-intervention evaluation | 0 | ||
12. Are the evaluation methods described in sufficient detail to replicate? | ||||
a. | Adequate | (Evaluation methods could be replicated) | 2 | |
b. | Fair | (Evaluation methods described but could not be replicated) | 1 | |
c. | Inadequate | (Evaluation methods not described) | 0 | |
13. Were objective methods used to evaluate outcomes? | ||||
a. | Adequate | (Evaluation methods were objective) | 2 | |
b. | Fair | (Objectivity of evaluation is questionable) | 1 | |
c. | Inadequate | (Evaluation methods not objective) | 0 | |
14. Was there any evaluation of long-term retention of information related to training hospital staff in case of an MCI event? | ||||
a. | Yes | (At least one month after completion of the intervention) | 2 | |
b. | No | 0 | ||
Section VII: Statistical Quality and Interpretation | ||||
For each question, circle one response. | ||||
15. Was there quantitative data analysis? | ||||
a. | Yes | Continue on with questions 16 – 18 below | ||
b. | No | Thank you, your form is complete | ||
16. For primary endpoints of the evaluation, does the study report the magnitude of difference between groups AND an index of variability (e.g., test statistic, p value, standard error, confidence interval)? | ||||
a. | Adequate | (Both reported with index of variability using standard error or confidence intervals) | 2 | |
b. | Fair | (Both reported with index of variability using only test statistic or p value) | 1 | |
c. | Inadequate | (One or both not reported) | 0 | |
d. | No comparison group | |||
17. Were the appropriate analyses and statistical tests performed? | ||||
a. | Adequate | (Yes for all analyses) | 2 | |
b. | Fair | (Yes for only some of the analyses) | 1 | |
c. | Inadequate | (Not for any of the analyses or can't tell) | 0 | |
18. If groups were not comparable at study onset, was there adjustment of potential confounders with multi-variate or stratified analyses AND were confounders coded in a way to make such control adequate? | ||||
a. | Adequate | (Adjustment done AND confounders appropriately coded) | 2 | |
b. | Fair | (Adjustment done BUT confounders not coded appropriately OR coding unclear OR can't tell) | 1 | |
c. | Inadequate | (Adjustment not done OR comparability not previously reported) | 0 | |
d. | No comparison group | |||
THANK YOU! For completing this form. Please return it to Mollie. |
- Appendix D: Coding Forms_Quality Review Form - Training of Hospital Staff to Res...Appendix D: Coding Forms_Quality Review Form - Training of Hospital Staff to Respond to a Mass Casualty Incident
- Rattus norvegicus D-amino-acid oxidase (Dao), mRNARattus norvegicus D-amino-acid oxidase (Dao), mRNAgi|16758433|ref|NM_053626.1|Nucleotide
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
See more...