Additional findings on checklist use
Three-quarters of the INT teams spontaneously adopted the ‘do verify’ approach to checklist usage, with 15% of the teams using it in the form of a ‘challenge-response’ list. The rest of the teams showed a mixed usage (10%). A relevant proportion in both groups interrupted checklist use and repeatedly continued checklist use by repeatedly picking up the list (70%, n = 14). The style of checklist usage (‘do verify’: 38.53 ± 6.59 vs. ‘challenge response’: 40.80) did not show a significantly different PS (In the pre-scenario questionnaire, attitudes towards the usefulness of checklists in the prehospital setting showed no differences on a 1–6 Likert scale (INT: 4.75 ± 1.25; CON: 4.89 ± 1.17; In the post-scenario questionnaire, INT rated the effect of checklist use on the duration of care on a 1 (not extended) to 6 (relevant extended) Likert scale as medium (3.57 ± 1.57). The workflow disturbance by the checklist was rated similarly (3.27 ± 1.49). However, the ABCDE structure of the checklist subjectively helped in keeping treatment priorities in the right order (Likert scale 1–6: 4.34 ± 1.22) and not missing out on treatment items (Likert scale 1–6: 4.62 ± 1.38). Most users found the language and terminology of the checklist to be unambiguous (79.0%, n = 73/92).