Full-text sections checked
Complete PMC article via Europe PMC XML: §3 Method, §4 Results/Tables 1–5, §5 Discussion and §5.2 Limitations
Checked 16 October 2026 · UK, predominantly the 2017 Manchester health-system response
Thai/English summaries are project paraphrases, not official translations or endorsement of the original study.
Research question
How do real-incident responders describe contributions from prior exercises?
Method and context
Retrospective mixed methods: 86 surveys (79 Manchester), comparing 36 exercise participants with 50 nonparticipants, plus 21 interviews; the incident followed key exercises within two months.
Study summary
Directly investigates exercise-to-incident transfer using retrospective reports, not independently scored live team performance.
Findings
Exercise participants felt better trained (p = .001), but perceived response effectiveness did not differ significantly; interviews described plan use, role confidence and coordination adaptations.
Contribution
Identifies transfer mechanisms to investigate: recently rehearsed plans and shared roles.
Interpretation limits
Authors acknowledge selection and self-report bias. Our appraisal: not objective causal proof despite the authors’ conclusion wording, and no evidence of 6–12-month retention.
A question for further research
Project proposal: for naturally occurring incidents, link authorized de-identified AARs to exercise histories and decision logs; distinguish recollections, contemporaneous evidence and confounders.
A starting point for a study design: extend the literature search, specify methods and outcomes, and assess ethics requirements for the data and participants.
Explore the team assessment framework informed by this study
Proposed pilot, not an instrument endorsed by the original researchers
Connect evidence to KSEC / OBE
Project-proposed critical-appraisal evidence, not research findings or accreditation criteria from the original authors.
- K
- Explain the question, concepts and findings with locators in the original.
- S
- Compare methods, variables and limitations with another study before designing a test or CPX.
- E
- Separate reported results from your proposals, cite originals and examine implications for vulnerable groups.
- C
- Record responses to critique and revisions after new evidence. Observe behaviour repeatedly, not from a single reading.
Related learning modules
- Design a CPX from intended outcomes
- From knowledge resources to OBE and KSEC assessment
- EOC, common operating picture and crisis decisions
Related knowledge domains
Original-study citation
Elena A. Skryabina; Naomi Betts; Gabriel Reedy; Paul Riley; Richard Amlôt (2020). The role of emergency preparedness exercises in the response to a mass casualty terrorist incident: A mixed methods study. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 46, 101503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101503
Verify details against the original and format for your journal or institution. Titles and author names follow the source.