The Effect of Critical Task Auto-failure Criteria on Medical Evaluation Methods in the Pararescue Schoolhouse.

Q3 Medicine
Ian Richardson, Michael J Lauria, Brian Gravano, Jeffrey F Swenson, Stephen C Rush
{"title":"The Effect of Critical Task Auto-failure Criteria on Medical Evaluation Methods in the Pararescue Schoolhouse.","authors":"Ian Richardson, Michael J Lauria, Brian Gravano, Jeffrey F Swenson, Stephen C Rush","doi":"10.55460/VG7D-H3WA","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Medical training and evaluation are important for mission readiness in the pararescue career field. Because evaluation methods are not standardized, evaluation methods must align with training objectives. We propose an alternative evaluation method and discuss relevant factors when designing military medical evaluation metrics.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We compared two evaluation methods, the traditional checklist (TC) method used in the pararescue apprentice course and an alternative weighted checklist (AWC) method like that used at the U.S. Army static line jumpmaster course. The AWC allows up to two minor errors, while critical task errors result in autofailure. We recorded 168 medical scenarios during two Apprentice course classes and retroactively compared the two evaluation methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Despite the possibility of auto-failure with the AWC, there was no significant difference between the two evaluation methods, and both showed similar overall pass rates (TC=50% pass, AWC=48.8% pass, p=.41). The two evaluation methods yielded the same result for 147 out of 168 scenarios (87.5%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The AWC method strongly emphasizes critical tasks without significantly increasing failures. It may provide additional benefits by being more closely aligned with our training objectives while providing quantifiable data for a longitudinal review of student performance.</p>","PeriodicalId":53630,"journal":{"name":"Journal of special operations medicine : a peer reviewed journal for SOF medical professionals","volume":" ","pages":"67-71"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of special operations medicine : a peer reviewed journal for SOF medical professionals","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55460/VG7D-H3WA","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Medical training and evaluation are important for mission readiness in the pararescue career field. Because evaluation methods are not standardized, evaluation methods must align with training objectives. We propose an alternative evaluation method and discuss relevant factors when designing military medical evaluation metrics.

Methods: We compared two evaluation methods, the traditional checklist (TC) method used in the pararescue apprentice course and an alternative weighted checklist (AWC) method like that used at the U.S. Army static line jumpmaster course. The AWC allows up to two minor errors, while critical task errors result in autofailure. We recorded 168 medical scenarios during two Apprentice course classes and retroactively compared the two evaluation methods.

Results: Despite the possibility of auto-failure with the AWC, there was no significant difference between the two evaluation methods, and both showed similar overall pass rates (TC=50% pass, AWC=48.8% pass, p=.41). The two evaluation methods yielded the same result for 147 out of 168 scenarios (87.5%).

Conclusions: The AWC method strongly emphasizes critical tasks without significantly increasing failures. It may provide additional benefits by being more closely aligned with our training objectives while providing quantifiable data for a longitudinal review of student performance.

关键任务自动失败标准对伞兵学校医疗评估方法的影响。
背景:医疗培训和评估对于伞兵职业领域的任务准备非常重要。由于评估方法没有标准化,因此评估方法必须与培训目标保持一致。我们提出了一种替代评估方法,并讨论了设计军事医疗评估指标时的相关因素:我们比较了两种评估方法,一种是伞兵学徒课程中使用的传统核对表(TC)方法,另一种是美国陆军静态线路跳伞训练课程中使用的替代加权核对表(AWC)方法。AWC 最多允许出现两次轻微错误,而关键任务错误则会导致自动失败。我们在两个学徒课程班中记录了 168 个医疗场景,并对两种评估方法进行了追溯比较:结果:尽管 AWC 可能会导致自动失败,但两种评估方法之间没有显著差异,总体通过率相似(TC=50% 通过,AWC=48.8% 通过,P=.41)。在 168 个场景中,两种评价方法对 147 个场景(87.5%)的评价结果相同:结论:AWC 方法着重强调了关键任务,而不会显著增加失败率。结论:AWC 方法强调了关键任务,而不会明显增加失败率。它可能会带来更多好处,因为它更符合我们的培训目标,同时为纵向审查学生成绩提供了可量化的数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
91
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信