U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

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  • This publication is provided for historical reference only and the information may be out of date.

This publication is provided for historical reference only and the information may be out of date.

Cover of Training of Hospital Staff to Respond to a Mass Casualty Incident

Training of Hospital Staff to Respond to a Mass Casualty Incident.

Show details

Appendix D: Coding Forms_Quality Review Form

Image er-hsmasscif3.jpg
Image er-hsmasscif4.jpg
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
Image er-hsmasscif5.jpg
Skip to item 7
4. Was assignment of study groups randomized?
a.Yes2
b.No0
c.Unclear0
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 factors2
b.Groups have minor difference in 1 factor1.5
c.Groups have major difference in 1 factor or minor differences in more than 1 factor1
d.No information about groups' characteristics or inadequate to compare0
6. Was there any intervention other than the educational intervention of interest that differed between groups?
a.Yes0
b.No2
c.Unclear0
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.Yes2
b.No0
c.Unclear0
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 evaluation2
b.Post-intervention evaluation1
c.Neither pre- nor post-intervention evaluation0
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.No0
Section VII: Statistical Quality and Interpretation
For each question, circle one response.
15. Was there quantitative data analysis?
a.Yes
Image er-hsmasscif5.jpg
Continue on with questions 16 – 18 below
b.No
Image er-hsmasscif5.jpg
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.
Image er-hsmasscif6.jpg
Image er-hsmasscif7.jpg
Image er-hsmasscif8.jpg
Image er-hsmasscif9.jpg
Image er-hsmasscif10.jpg

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...