Anne-Laure Philippon, Antoine Lefevre-Scelles, Xavier Eyer, Carine Zumstein, Aiham Ghazali, Simon Audibert, Pierrick Le Borgne, Emmanuel Triby, Jennifer Truchot
{"title":"Testing the validity of three acute care assessment tools for assessing residents' performance during in situ simulation: the ACAT-SimSit study.","authors":"Anne-Laure Philippon, Antoine Lefevre-Scelles, Xavier Eyer, Carine Zumstein, Aiham Ghazali, Simon Audibert, Pierrick Le Borgne, Emmanuel Triby, Jennifer Truchot","doi":"10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001133","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The assessment of technical and nontechnical skills in emergency medicine requires reliable and usable tools. Three Acute Care Assessment Tools (ACATs) have been developed to assess medical learners in their management of cardiac arrest (ACAT-CA), coma (ACAT-coma) and acute respiratory failure (ACAT-ARF).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to analyze the reliability and usability of the three ACATs when used for in situ (bedside) simulation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective multicenter validation study tested ACATs using interprofessional in situ simulations in seven emergency departments and invited training residents to participate in them. Each session was rated by two independent raters using ACAT. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to assess interrater reliability, and Cronbach's alpha coefficient was used to assess internal consistency for each ACAT. The correlation between ACATs' scores and the learners' level of performance was also assessed. Finally, a questionnaire and two focus groups were used to assess the usability of the ACATs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 104 in situ simulation sessions, including 85 residents, were evaluated by 37 raters. The ICC for ACAT-CA, ACAT-coma and ACAT-ARF were 0.95 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.93-0.98], 0.89 (95% CI, 0.77-0.95) and 0.92 (95%CI 0.83-0.96), respectively. The Cronbach's alphas were 0.79, 0.80 and 0.73, respectively. The ACAT-CA and ARF showed good construct validity, as third-year residents obtained significantly higher scores than first-year residents ( P < 0.001; P < 0.019). The raters supported the usability of the tools, even though they expressed concerns regarding the use of simulations in a summative way.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study reported that the three ACATs showed good external validity and usability.</p>","PeriodicalId":11893,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001133","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: The assessment of technical and nontechnical skills in emergency medicine requires reliable and usable tools. Three Acute Care Assessment Tools (ACATs) have been developed to assess medical learners in their management of cardiac arrest (ACAT-CA), coma (ACAT-coma) and acute respiratory failure (ACAT-ARF).
Objective: This study aims to analyze the reliability and usability of the three ACATs when used for in situ (bedside) simulation.
Methods: This prospective multicenter validation study tested ACATs using interprofessional in situ simulations in seven emergency departments and invited training residents to participate in them. Each session was rated by two independent raters using ACAT. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to assess interrater reliability, and Cronbach's alpha coefficient was used to assess internal consistency for each ACAT. The correlation between ACATs' scores and the learners' level of performance was also assessed. Finally, a questionnaire and two focus groups were used to assess the usability of the ACATs.
Results: A total of 104 in situ simulation sessions, including 85 residents, were evaluated by 37 raters. The ICC for ACAT-CA, ACAT-coma and ACAT-ARF were 0.95 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.93-0.98], 0.89 (95% CI, 0.77-0.95) and 0.92 (95%CI 0.83-0.96), respectively. The Cronbach's alphas were 0.79, 0.80 and 0.73, respectively. The ACAT-CA and ARF showed good construct validity, as third-year residents obtained significantly higher scores than first-year residents ( P < 0.001; P < 0.019). The raters supported the usability of the tools, even though they expressed concerns regarding the use of simulations in a summative way.
Conclusion: This study reported that the three ACATs showed good external validity and usability.
期刊介绍:
The European Journal of Emergency Medicine is the official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine. It is devoted to serving the European emergency medicine community and to promoting European standards of training, diagnosis and care in this rapidly growing field.
Published bimonthly, the Journal offers original papers on all aspects of acute injury and sudden illness, including: emergency medicine, anaesthesiology, cardiology, disaster medicine, intensive care, internal medicine, orthopaedics, paediatrics, toxicology and trauma care. It addresses issues on the organization of emergency services in hospitals and in the community and examines postgraduate training from European and global perspectives. The Journal also publishes papers focusing on the different models of emergency healthcare delivery in Europe and beyond. With a multidisciplinary approach, the European Journal of Emergency Medicine publishes scientific research, topical reviews, news of meetings and events of interest to the emergency medicine community.
Submitted articles undergo a preliminary review by the editor. Some articles may be returned to authors without further consideration. Those being considered for publication will undergo further assessment and peer-review by the editors and those invited to do so from a reviewer pool.