Measuring Residents' Competence in Chest Tube Insertion on Thiel-Embalmed Bodies: A Validity Study.

IF 1.7 3区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Leander De Mol, Isabelle Van Herzeele, Patrick Van de Voorde, Hanne Vanommeslaeghe, Lars Konge, Liesbeth Desender, Wouter Willaert
{"title":"Measuring Residents' Competence in Chest Tube Insertion on Thiel-Embalmed Bodies: A Validity Study.","authors":"Leander De Mol, Isabelle Van Herzeele, Patrick Van de Voorde, Hanne Vanommeslaeghe, Lars Konge, Liesbeth Desender, Wouter Willaert","doi":"10.1097/SIH.0000000000000842","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Chest tube insertions (CTIs) have a high complication rate, prompting the training of technical skills in simulated settings. However, assessment tools require validity evidence prior to their implementation. This study aimed to collect validity evidence for assessment of technical skills in CTI on Thiel-embalmed human bodies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Invitations were sent to residents and staff from the departments of surgery, pulmonology, and emergency medicine. Participants were familiarized with the Thiel body and the supplied equipment. Standardized clinical context and instructions were provided. All participants performed 2 CTIs and were assessed with the Assessment for Competence in Chest Tube InsertiON (ACTION) tool, consisting of a 17-item rating scale and a 16-item error checklist. Live and post hoc video-based assessments by 2 raters were performed. Generalizability analysis was performed to evaluate reliability. Mean scores and errors were compared using a mixed-model repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). A pass/fail score was determined using the contrasting groups' method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ten novices and 8 experienced participants completed the study. The Generalizability coefficients were moderate for the rating scale (0.75), and low for the error checklist (0.4). Novices scored lower on the rating scale?? (44±6.7/68 vs 50.8 ± 5.7/68, P = 0.024), but did not commit significantly more errors (1.6 ± 1.1/16 vs 1.0 ± 0.6/16, P = 0.066). A pass/fail score of 47/68 was established.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The rating scale in the Assessment for Competence in Chest Tube InsertiON tool has a robust validity argument for use on Thiel-embalmed bodies, allowing it to be used in simulation-based mastery learning curricula. In contrast, its error checklist has insufficient reliability and validity to be used for summative assessment.</p>","PeriodicalId":49517,"journal":{"name":"Simulation in Healthcare-Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Simulation in Healthcare-Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000842","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Chest tube insertions (CTIs) have a high complication rate, prompting the training of technical skills in simulated settings. However, assessment tools require validity evidence prior to their implementation. This study aimed to collect validity evidence for assessment of technical skills in CTI on Thiel-embalmed human bodies.

Methods: Invitations were sent to residents and staff from the departments of surgery, pulmonology, and emergency medicine. Participants were familiarized with the Thiel body and the supplied equipment. Standardized clinical context and instructions were provided. All participants performed 2 CTIs and were assessed with the Assessment for Competence in Chest Tube InsertiON (ACTION) tool, consisting of a 17-item rating scale and a 16-item error checklist. Live and post hoc video-based assessments by 2 raters were performed. Generalizability analysis was performed to evaluate reliability. Mean scores and errors were compared using a mixed-model repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). A pass/fail score was determined using the contrasting groups' method.

Results: Ten novices and 8 experienced participants completed the study. The Generalizability coefficients were moderate for the rating scale (0.75), and low for the error checklist (0.4). Novices scored lower on the rating scale?? (44±6.7/68 vs 50.8 ± 5.7/68, P = 0.024), but did not commit significantly more errors (1.6 ± 1.1/16 vs 1.0 ± 0.6/16, P = 0.066). A pass/fail score of 47/68 was established.

Conclusion: The rating scale in the Assessment for Competence in Chest Tube InsertiON tool has a robust validity argument for use on Thiel-embalmed bodies, allowing it to be used in simulation-based mastery learning curricula. In contrast, its error checklist has insufficient reliability and validity to be used for summative assessment.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
8.30%
发文量
158
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare is a multidisciplinary publication encompassing all areas of applications and research in healthcare simulation technology. The journal is relevant to a broad range of clinical and biomedical specialties, and publishes original basic, clinical, and translational research on these topics and more: Safety and quality-oriented training programs; Development of educational and competency assessment standards; Reports of experience in the use of simulation technology; Virtual reality; Epidemiologic modeling; Molecular, pharmacologic, and disease modeling.
×
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