测试三种急症护理评估工具的有效性,以评估住院医师在原位模拟中的表现:ACAT-SimSit 研究。

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
European Journal of Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-19 DOI:10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001133
Anne-Laure Philippon, Antoine Lefevre-Scelles, Xavier Eyer, Carine Zumstein, Aiham Ghazali, Simon Audibert, Pierrick Le Borgne, Emmanuel Triby, Jennifer Truchot
{"title":"测试三种急症护理评估工具的有效性,以评估住院医师在原位模拟中的表现:ACAT-SimSit 研究。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

背景:急诊医学技术和非技术技能的评估需要可靠和可用的工具。目前已开发出三种急性护理评估工具(ACAT),用于评估医学学习者对心脏骤停(ACAT-CA)、昏迷(ACAT-coma)和急性呼吸衰竭(ACAT-ARF)的处理能力:本研究旨在分析三种 ACAT 在用于原位(床旁)模拟时的可靠性和可用性:这项前瞻性多中心验证研究在七个急诊科使用跨专业原位模拟对 ACAT 进行了测试,并邀请接受培训的住院医师参与其中。每节课都由两名独立评分员使用 ACAT 进行评分。类内相关系数(ICC)用于评估评分者之间的可靠性,克朗巴赫α系数用于评估每个 ACAT 的内部一致性。此外,还评估了 ACAT 分数与学习者成绩水平之间的相关性。最后,还通过问卷调查和两个焦点小组来评估 ACAT 的可用性:37名评分员对包括85名住院医师在内的104个原位模拟课程进行了评估。ACAT-CA、ACAT-coma 和 ACAT-ARF 的 ICC 分别为 0.95 [95% 置信区间 (CI),0.93-0.98]、0.89 (95% CI,0.77-0.95) 和 0.92 (95%CI 0.83-0.96)。Cronbach's alphas 分别为 0.79、0.80 和 0.73。ACAT-CA和ARF显示出良好的建构效度,因为三年级住院医师的得分明显高于一年级住院医师(P 结论:ACAT-CA和ARF显示出良好的建构效度:本研究表明,三种 ACAT 具有良好的外部效度和可用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Testing the validity of three acute care assessment tools for assessing residents' performance during in situ simulation: the ACAT-SimSit study.

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.

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
3.60
自引率
27.30%
发文量
180
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
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. ​
×
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