基于模拟的结肠镜检查评估工具的开发和验证。

IF 2.8 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Claudia Jaensch, Rune D Jensen, Charlotte Paltved, Anders H Madsen
{"title":"基于模拟的结肠镜检查评估工具的开发和验证。","authors":"Claudia Jaensch, Rune D Jensen, Charlotte Paltved, Anders H Madsen","doi":"10.1186/s41077-023-00260-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Colonoscopy is difficult to learn. Virtual reality simulation training is helpful, but how and when novices should progress to patient-based training has yet to be established. To date, there is no assessment tool for credentialing novice endoscopists prior to clinical practice. The aim of this study was to develop such an assessment tool based on metrics provided by the simulator. The metrics used for the assessment tool should be able to discriminate between novices, intermediates, and experts and include essential checklist items for patient safety.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The validation process was conducted based on the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. An expert panel decided upon three essential checklist items for patient safety based on Lawshe's method: perforation, hazardous tension to the bowel wall, and cecal intubation. A power calculation was performed. In this study, the Simbionix GI Mentor II simulator was used. Metrics with discriminatory ability were identified with variance analysis and combined to form an aggregate score. Based on this score and the essential items, pass/fail standards were set and reliability was tested.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-four participants (eight novices, eight intermediates, and eight expert endoscopists) performed two simulated colonoscopies. Four metrics with discriminatory ability were identified. The aggregate score ranged from 4.2 to 51.2 points. Novices had a mean score of 10.00 (SD 5.13), intermediates 24.63 (SD 7.91), and experts 30.72 (SD 11.98). The difference in score between novices and the other two groups was statistically significant (p<0.01). Although expert endoscopists had a higher score, the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.40). Reliability was good (Cronbach's alpha=0.86). A pass/fail score was defined at 17.1 points with correct completion of three essential checklist items, resulting in three experts and three intermediates failing and one novice passing the assessment.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We established a valid and reliable assessment tool with a pass/fail standard on the simulator. We suggest using the assessment after simulation-based training before commencing work-based learning.</p>","PeriodicalId":72108,"journal":{"name":"Advances in simulation (London, England)","volume":"8 1","pages":"19"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10413715/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development and validation of a simulation-based assessment tool in colonoscopy.\",\"authors\":\"Claudia Jaensch, Rune D Jensen, Charlotte Paltved, Anders H Madsen\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41077-023-00260-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Colonoscopy is difficult to learn. Virtual reality simulation training is helpful, but how and when novices should progress to patient-based training has yet to be established. To date, there is no assessment tool for credentialing novice endoscopists prior to clinical practice. The aim of this study was to develop such an assessment tool based on metrics provided by the simulator. The metrics used for the assessment tool should be able to discriminate between novices, intermediates, and experts and include essential checklist items for patient safety.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The validation process was conducted based on the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. An expert panel decided upon three essential checklist items for patient safety based on Lawshe's method: perforation, hazardous tension to the bowel wall, and cecal intubation. A power calculation was performed. In this study, the Simbionix GI Mentor II simulator was used. Metrics with discriminatory ability were identified with variance analysis and combined to form an aggregate score. Based on this score and the essential items, pass/fail standards were set and reliability was tested.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-four participants (eight novices, eight intermediates, and eight expert endoscopists) performed two simulated colonoscopies. Four metrics with discriminatory ability were identified. The aggregate score ranged from 4.2 to 51.2 points. Novices had a mean score of 10.00 (SD 5.13), intermediates 24.63 (SD 7.91), and experts 30.72 (SD 11.98). The difference in score between novices and the other two groups was statistically significant (p<0.01). Although expert endoscopists had a higher score, the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.40). Reliability was good (Cronbach's alpha=0.86). A pass/fail score was defined at 17.1 points with correct completion of three essential checklist items, resulting in three experts and three intermediates failing and one novice passing the assessment.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We established a valid and reliable assessment tool with a pass/fail standard on the simulator. We suggest using the assessment after simulation-based training before commencing work-based learning.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72108,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in simulation (London, England)\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"19\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10413715/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in simulation (London, England)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-023-00260-5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in simulation (London, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-023-00260-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:结肠镜检查很难学习。虚拟现实模拟训练是有帮助的,但如何以及何时新手应该进展到以病人为基础的培训尚未建立。到目前为止,在临床实践之前,还没有评估工具来认证新手内窥镜医师。本研究的目的是基于模拟器提供的指标开发这样一个评估工具。用于评估工具的指标应能够区分新手、中级人员和专家,并包括患者安全的基本清单项目。方法:采用《教育与心理测试标准》进行验证。专家小组根据Lawshe的方法确定了患者安全的三个基本清单项目:穿孔,肠壁的危险张力和盲肠插管。进行了功率计算。本研究使用Simbionix GI Mentor II模拟器。通过方差分析确定具有区分能力的指标,并将其合并形成总分。根据这个分数和基本项目,设定合格/不合格标准,并测试可靠性。结果:24名参与者(8名新手,8名中级和8名内窥镜专家)进行了两次模拟结肠镜检查。确定了四个具有区分能力的指标。总分在4.2 ~ 51.2分之间。新手平均得分为10.00 (SD 5.13),中级为24.63 (SD 7.91),专家为30.72 (SD 11.98)。结论:在模拟器上建立了一个有效可靠的评估工具,具有及格/不及格标准。我们建议在开始基于工作的学习之前,在基于模拟的培训之后进行评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Development and validation of a simulation-based assessment tool in colonoscopy.

Development and validation of a simulation-based assessment tool in colonoscopy.

Development and validation of a simulation-based assessment tool in colonoscopy.

Background: Colonoscopy is difficult to learn. Virtual reality simulation training is helpful, but how and when novices should progress to patient-based training has yet to be established. To date, there is no assessment tool for credentialing novice endoscopists prior to clinical practice. The aim of this study was to develop such an assessment tool based on metrics provided by the simulator. The metrics used for the assessment tool should be able to discriminate between novices, intermediates, and experts and include essential checklist items for patient safety.

Methods: The validation process was conducted based on the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. An expert panel decided upon three essential checklist items for patient safety based on Lawshe's method: perforation, hazardous tension to the bowel wall, and cecal intubation. A power calculation was performed. In this study, the Simbionix GI Mentor II simulator was used. Metrics with discriminatory ability were identified with variance analysis and combined to form an aggregate score. Based on this score and the essential items, pass/fail standards were set and reliability was tested.

Results: Twenty-four participants (eight novices, eight intermediates, and eight expert endoscopists) performed two simulated colonoscopies. Four metrics with discriminatory ability were identified. The aggregate score ranged from 4.2 to 51.2 points. Novices had a mean score of 10.00 (SD 5.13), intermediates 24.63 (SD 7.91), and experts 30.72 (SD 11.98). The difference in score between novices and the other two groups was statistically significant (p<0.01). Although expert endoscopists had a higher score, the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.40). Reliability was good (Cronbach's alpha=0.86). A pass/fail score was defined at 17.1 points with correct completion of three essential checklist items, resulting in three experts and three intermediates failing and one novice passing the assessment.

Conclusion: We established a valid and reliable assessment tool with a pass/fail standard on the simulator. We suggest using the assessment after simulation-based training before commencing work-based learning.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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