Somewhat akin to the engine-out go-around being generally well flown, while normal configuration go-around being frequently cocked up, due to emphasis or bias in training on certain manoeuvres, I personally find there is a big gap in the training, as a crew, around evacuations, assessments of problems, and what are the immediate concerns. Generally caused by limited training resources- money, time, facilities.
In previous companies, there have been a wide variety of ways of dealing with flight deck to cabin communications in non-normal events. Added to which, a flight deck crew that has never experienced a real ground situation, or something that might develop into an evacuation, tend to be minimalist. Telling the cabin to standby being sufficient, as per company SOP.
A crew that has been in a real situation tends to gather more info, sooner.
A difference between a simple 'at stations' PA, and following on with 'report' and getting the bigger picture from each individual crew member in the immediate aftermath, via interphone?
There have been a few occasions that I can remember, where an excitable member of the cabin crew has almost created a worse situation by taking a wrong action, or the right action too early. I'd suggest that starting an evacuation prior to shutting down the engines being an example of the latter.
Are we doing it right, or have we just been lucky?