D. Veneziano, G. Patruno, M. Talso, T. Tokas, S. Proietti, A. Porreca, G. Kamphuis, S. Biyani, E. Emiliani, M. Cepeda Delgado, Lopez Maria De Mar Perez, R. Miano, S. Ferretti, N. Macchione, P. Kallidonis, E. Montanari, G. Tripepi, A. Ploumidis, G. Cacciamani, Estevão Lima, B. Somani
{"title":"The performance improvement-score algorithm applied to endoscopic stone. Treatment step 1 protocol.","authors":"D. Veneziano, G. Patruno, M. Talso, T. Tokas, S. Proietti, A. Porreca, G. Kamphuis, S. Biyani, E. Emiliani, M. Cepeda Delgado, Lopez Maria De Mar Perez, R. Miano, S. Ferretti, N. Macchione, P. Kallidonis, E. Montanari, G. Tripepi, A. Ploumidis, G. Cacciamani, Estevão Lima, B. Somani","doi":"10.23736/S0393-2249.20.03747-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nPi-score (Performance Improvement score) has been proven to be reliable to measure performance improvement during E-BLUS hands-on training sessions. Our study is aimed to adapt and test the score to EST s1 (Endoscopic Stone Treatment step 1) protocol, in consideration of its worldwide adoption for practical training.\n\n\nMETHODS\nThe Pi-score algorithm considers time measurement and number of errors from two different repetitions (first and fifth) of the same training task and compares them to the relative task goals, to produce an objective score. Data were obtained from the first edition of 'ART in Flexible Course', during 4 courses in Barcelona and Milan. Collected data were independently analysed by the experts for Pi assessment. Their scores were compared for inter-rater reliability. The average scores from all tutors were then compared to the PI-score provided by our algorithm for each participant, in order to verify their statistical correlation. Kappa Statistics was used for comparison analysis.\n\n\nRESULTS\n16 Hands-on Training expert tutors and 47 3rd year residents in Urology were involved. Concordance found between the 16 proctors' scores was the following: Task1=0.30 (\"fair\"); Task2=0.18 (\"slight\"); Task3=0.10 (\"slight\"); Task4=0.20, (\"slight\"). Concordance between Pi-score results and proctor average scores per-participant was the following: Task1=0.74 (\"substantial\"); Task2=0.71 (\"substantial\"); Task3=0.46 (\"moderate\"); Task4=0.49 (\"moderate\").\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nOur exploratory study demonstrates that Pi-score can be effectively adapted to EST s1. Our algorithm successfully provided an objective score that equals the average performance improvement scores assigned by of a cohort of experts, in relation to a small amount of training attempts.","PeriodicalId":49015,"journal":{"name":"Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica","volume":"90 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.20.03747-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Pi-score (Performance Improvement score) has been proven to be reliable to measure performance improvement during E-BLUS hands-on training sessions. Our study is aimed to adapt and test the score to EST s1 (Endoscopic Stone Treatment step 1) protocol, in consideration of its worldwide adoption for practical training.
METHODS
The Pi-score algorithm considers time measurement and number of errors from two different repetitions (first and fifth) of the same training task and compares them to the relative task goals, to produce an objective score. Data were obtained from the first edition of 'ART in Flexible Course', during 4 courses in Barcelona and Milan. Collected data were independently analysed by the experts for Pi assessment. Their scores were compared for inter-rater reliability. The average scores from all tutors were then compared to the PI-score provided by our algorithm for each participant, in order to verify their statistical correlation. Kappa Statistics was used for comparison analysis.
RESULTS
16 Hands-on Training expert tutors and 47 3rd year residents in Urology were involved. Concordance found between the 16 proctors' scores was the following: Task1=0.30 ("fair"); Task2=0.18 ("slight"); Task3=0.10 ("slight"); Task4=0.20, ("slight"). Concordance between Pi-score results and proctor average scores per-participant was the following: Task1=0.74 ("substantial"); Task2=0.71 ("substantial"); Task3=0.46 ("moderate"); Task4=0.49 ("moderate").
CONCLUSIONS
Our exploratory study demonstrates that Pi-score can be effectively adapted to EST s1. Our algorithm successfully provided an objective score that equals the average performance improvement scores assigned by of a cohort of experts, in relation to a small amount of training attempts.
期刊介绍:
The journal Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica publishes scientific papers on nephrology and urology. Manuscripts may be submitted in the form of Minerva opinion editorials, editorial comments, original articles, video illustrated articles, review articles and letters to the Editor.