急诊科肺部超声质量评估的新评分标准。

IF 1.8 3区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Jessica R Balderston, Taylor Brittan, Bruce J Kimura, Chen Wang, Jordan Tozer
{"title":"急诊科肺部超声质量评估的新评分标准。","authors":"Jessica R Balderston, Taylor Brittan, Bruce J Kimura, Chen Wang, Jordan Tozer","doi":"10.5811/westjem.18225","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The use of a reliable scoring system for quality assessment (QA) is imperative to limit inconsistencies in measuring ultrasound acquisition skills. The current grading scale used for QA endorsed by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) is non-specific, applies irrespective of the type of study performed, and has not been rigorously validated. Our goal in this study was to determine whether a succinct, organ-specific grading scale designed for lung-specific QA would be more precise with better interobserver agreement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a prospective validation study of an objective QA scale for lung ultrasound (LUS) in the emergency department. We identified the first 100 LUS performed in normal clinical practice in the year 2020. Four reviewers at an urban academic center who were either emergency ultrasound fellowship-trained or current fellows with at least six months of QA experience scored each study, resulting in a total of 400. The primary outcome was the level of agreement between the reviewers. Our secondary outcome was the variability of the scores given to the studies. For the agreement between reviewers, we computed the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) based on a two-way random-effect model with a single rater for each grading scale. We generated 10,000 bootstrapped ICCs to construct 95% confidence intervals (CI) for both grading systems. A two-sided one-sample <i>t</i>-test was used to determine whether there were differences in the bootstrapped ICCs between the two grading systems.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The ICC between reviewers was 0.552 (95% CI 0.40-0.68) for the ACEP grading scale and 0.703 (95% CI 0.59-0.79) for the novel grading scale (<i>P</i> < 0.001), indicating significantly more interobserver agreement using the novel scale compared to the ACEP scale. The variance of scores was similar (0.93 and 0.92 for the novel and ACEP scales, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We found an increased interobserver agreement between reviewers when using the novel, organ-specific scale when compared with the ACEP grading scale. Increased consistency in feedback based on objective criteria directed to the specific, targeted organ provides an opportunity to enhance learner education and satisfaction with their ultrasound education.</p>","PeriodicalId":23682,"journal":{"name":"Western Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":"25 2","pages":"264-267"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11000556/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Novel Scoring Scale for Quality Assessment of Lung Ultrasound in the Emergency Department.\",\"authors\":\"Jessica R Balderston, Taylor Brittan, Bruce J Kimura, Chen Wang, Jordan Tozer\",\"doi\":\"10.5811/westjem.18225\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The use of a reliable scoring system for quality assessment (QA) is imperative to limit inconsistencies in measuring ultrasound acquisition skills. The current grading scale used for QA endorsed by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) is non-specific, applies irrespective of the type of study performed, and has not been rigorously validated. Our goal in this study was to determine whether a succinct, organ-specific grading scale designed for lung-specific QA would be more precise with better interobserver agreement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a prospective validation study of an objective QA scale for lung ultrasound (LUS) in the emergency department. We identified the first 100 LUS performed in normal clinical practice in the year 2020. Four reviewers at an urban academic center who were either emergency ultrasound fellowship-trained or current fellows with at least six months of QA experience scored each study, resulting in a total of 400. The primary outcome was the level of agreement between the reviewers. Our secondary outcome was the variability of the scores given to the studies. For the agreement between reviewers, we computed the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) based on a two-way random-effect model with a single rater for each grading scale. We generated 10,000 bootstrapped ICCs to construct 95% confidence intervals (CI) for both grading systems. A two-sided one-sample <i>t</i>-test was used to determine whether there were differences in the bootstrapped ICCs between the two grading systems.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The ICC between reviewers was 0.552 (95% CI 0.40-0.68) for the ACEP grading scale and 0.703 (95% CI 0.59-0.79) for the novel grading scale (<i>P</i> < 0.001), indicating significantly more interobserver agreement using the novel scale compared to the ACEP scale. The variance of scores was similar (0.93 and 0.92 for the novel and ACEP scales, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We found an increased interobserver agreement between reviewers when using the novel, organ-specific scale when compared with the ACEP grading scale. Increased consistency in feedback based on objective criteria directed to the specific, targeted organ provides an opportunity to enhance learner education and satisfaction with their ultrasound education.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23682,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Western Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\"25 2\",\"pages\":\"264-267\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11000556/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Western Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.18225\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Western Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.18225","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:使用可靠的评分系统进行质量评估(QA)是限制超声采集技能测量不一致的当务之急。美国急诊医师学会(ACEP)认可的目前用于质量评估的分级表没有特异性,适用于任何类型的研究,而且尚未经过严格验证。本研究的目的是确定针对肺部特异性 QA 设计的简明、器官特异性分级表是否更精确,观察者之间的一致性是否更好:这是一项针对急诊科肺部超声检查(LUS)客观 QA 量表的前瞻性验证研究。我们确定了 2020 年正常临床实践中进行的前 100 例 LUS。一个城市学术中心的四名评审员对每项研究进行了评分,他们要么是受过急诊超声研究员培训的研究员,要么是具有至少六个月质量保证经验的现任研究员,共400人。主要结果是评审员之间的一致程度。我们的次要结果是研究评分的可变性。对于审稿人之间的一致性,我们根据双向随机效应模型计算了类内相关系数 (ICC),每个评分量表由一名审稿人进行评分。我们生成了 10,000 个引导 ICC,以构建两种评分系统的 95% 置信区间 (CI)。我们使用双侧单样本 t 检验来确定两种评分系统的引导 ICC 是否存在差异:结果:ACEP 分级表的审稿人间 ICC 为 0.552(95% CI 0.40-0.68),新分级表的审稿人间 ICC 为 0.703(95% CI 0.59-0.79):我们发现,与 ACEP 分级表相比,在使用新型器官特异性分级表时,审稿人之间的观察者间一致性更高。根据针对特定、目标器官的客观标准提高反馈的一致性为加强学习者的教育和提高他们对超声教育的满意度提供了机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Novel Scoring Scale for Quality Assessment of Lung Ultrasound in the Emergency Department.

Introduction: The use of a reliable scoring system for quality assessment (QA) is imperative to limit inconsistencies in measuring ultrasound acquisition skills. The current grading scale used for QA endorsed by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) is non-specific, applies irrespective of the type of study performed, and has not been rigorously validated. Our goal in this study was to determine whether a succinct, organ-specific grading scale designed for lung-specific QA would be more precise with better interobserver agreement.

Methods: This was a prospective validation study of an objective QA scale for lung ultrasound (LUS) in the emergency department. We identified the first 100 LUS performed in normal clinical practice in the year 2020. Four reviewers at an urban academic center who were either emergency ultrasound fellowship-trained or current fellows with at least six months of QA experience scored each study, resulting in a total of 400. The primary outcome was the level of agreement between the reviewers. Our secondary outcome was the variability of the scores given to the studies. For the agreement between reviewers, we computed the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) based on a two-way random-effect model with a single rater for each grading scale. We generated 10,000 bootstrapped ICCs to construct 95% confidence intervals (CI) for both grading systems. A two-sided one-sample t-test was used to determine whether there were differences in the bootstrapped ICCs between the two grading systems.

Results: The ICC between reviewers was 0.552 (95% CI 0.40-0.68) for the ACEP grading scale and 0.703 (95% CI 0.59-0.79) for the novel grading scale (P < 0.001), indicating significantly more interobserver agreement using the novel scale compared to the ACEP scale. The variance of scores was similar (0.93 and 0.92 for the novel and ACEP scales, respectively).

Conclusion: We found an increased interobserver agreement between reviewers when using the novel, organ-specific scale when compared with the ACEP grading scale. Increased consistency in feedback based on objective criteria directed to the specific, targeted organ provides an opportunity to enhance learner education and satisfaction with their ultrasound education.

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
Western Journal of Emergency Medicine
Western Journal of Emergency Medicine Medicine-Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.20%
发文量
125
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: WestJEM focuses on how the systems and delivery of emergency care affects health, health disparities, and health outcomes in communities and populations worldwide, including the impact of social conditions on the composition of patients seeking care in emergency departments.
×
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