跨机构乳突切除术评估工具乳突切除术能力标准设定

T. Kerwin, G. Wiet, Bradley Hittle, D. Stredney, P. De Boeck, A. Moberly, S. Andersen
{"title":"跨机构乳突切除术评估工具乳突切除术能力标准设定","authors":"T. Kerwin, G. Wiet, Bradley Hittle, D. Stredney, P. De Boeck, A. Moberly, S. Andersen","doi":"10.1177/0003489419889376","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: Competency-based surgical training involves progressive autonomy given to the trainee. This requires systematic and evidence-based assessment with well-defined standards of proficiency. The objective of this study is to develop standards for the cross-institutional mastoidectomy assessment tool to inform decisions regarding whether a resident demonstrates sufficient skill to perform a mastoidectomy with or without supervision. Methods: A panel of fellowship-trained content experts in mastoidectomy was surveyed in relation to the 16 items of the assessment tool to determine the skills needed for supervised and unsupervised surgery. We examined the consensus score to investigate the degree of agreement among respondents for each survey item as well as additional analyses to determine whether the reported skill level required for each survey item was significantly different for the supervised versus unsupervised level. Results: Ten panelists representing different US training programs responded. There was considerable consensus on cut-off scores for each item and trainee level between panelists, with moderate (0.62) to very high (0.95) consensus scores depending on assessment item. Further analyses demonstrated that the difference between supervised and unsupervised skill levels was significantly meaningful for all items. Finally, minimum-passing scores for each item was established. Conclusion: We defined performance standards for the cross-institutional mastoidectomy assessment tool using the Angoff method. These cut-off scores that can be used to determine when trainees can progress from performance under supervision to performance without supervision. This can be used to guide training in a competency-based training curriculum.","PeriodicalId":8361,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology","volume":"59 1","pages":"340 - 346"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Standard Setting of Competency in Mastoidectomy for the Cross-Institutional Mastoidectomy Assessment Tool\",\"authors\":\"T. Kerwin, G. Wiet, Bradley Hittle, D. Stredney, P. De Boeck, A. Moberly, S. Andersen\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0003489419889376\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: Competency-based surgical training involves progressive autonomy given to the trainee. This requires systematic and evidence-based assessment with well-defined standards of proficiency. The objective of this study is to develop standards for the cross-institutional mastoidectomy assessment tool to inform decisions regarding whether a resident demonstrates sufficient skill to perform a mastoidectomy with or without supervision. Methods: A panel of fellowship-trained content experts in mastoidectomy was surveyed in relation to the 16 items of the assessment tool to determine the skills needed for supervised and unsupervised surgery. We examined the consensus score to investigate the degree of agreement among respondents for each survey item as well as additional analyses to determine whether the reported skill level required for each survey item was significantly different for the supervised versus unsupervised level. Results: Ten panelists representing different US training programs responded. There was considerable consensus on cut-off scores for each item and trainee level between panelists, with moderate (0.62) to very high (0.95) consensus scores depending on assessment item. Further analyses demonstrated that the difference between supervised and unsupervised skill levels was significantly meaningful for all items. Finally, minimum-passing scores for each item was established. Conclusion: We defined performance standards for the cross-institutional mastoidectomy assessment tool using the Angoff method. These cut-off scores that can be used to determine when trainees can progress from performance under supervision to performance without supervision. This can be used to guide training in a competency-based training curriculum.\",\"PeriodicalId\":8361,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology\",\"volume\":\"59 1\",\"pages\":\"340 - 346\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-11-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0003489419889376\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0003489419889376","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

目的:以能力为基础的外科训练包括给予受训者渐进的自主权。这需要系统的、以证据为基础的评估,以及明确定义的熟练程度标准。本研究的目的是制定跨机构乳突切除术评估工具的标准,以决定住院医生是否有足够的技能在有或没有监督的情况下进行乳突切除术。方法:对一组接受过奖学金培训的乳突切除术内容专家进行调查,以确定有监督和无监督手术所需的技能。我们检查了共识分数,以调查受访者对每个调查项目的同意程度,并进行了额外的分析,以确定每个调查项目所需的报告技能水平在监督水平与无监督水平之间是否存在显着差异。结果:10位代表美国不同培训项目的小组成员做出了回应。小组成员对每个项目和学员水平的分界点得分有相当大的共识,根据评估项目的不同,有中等(0.62)到非常高(0.95)的共识得分。进一步的分析表明,监督和非监督技能水平之间的差异对所有项目都有显著意义。最后,建立各题的最低及格分数。结论:我们使用Angoff方法定义了跨机构乳突切除术评估工具的性能标准。这些截止分数可以用来确定受训者何时可以从监督下的表现进步到没有监督的表现。这可用于指导以能力为基础的培训课程中的培训。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Standard Setting of Competency in Mastoidectomy for the Cross-Institutional Mastoidectomy Assessment Tool
Objective: Competency-based surgical training involves progressive autonomy given to the trainee. This requires systematic and evidence-based assessment with well-defined standards of proficiency. The objective of this study is to develop standards for the cross-institutional mastoidectomy assessment tool to inform decisions regarding whether a resident demonstrates sufficient skill to perform a mastoidectomy with or without supervision. Methods: A panel of fellowship-trained content experts in mastoidectomy was surveyed in relation to the 16 items of the assessment tool to determine the skills needed for supervised and unsupervised surgery. We examined the consensus score to investigate the degree of agreement among respondents for each survey item as well as additional analyses to determine whether the reported skill level required for each survey item was significantly different for the supervised versus unsupervised level. Results: Ten panelists representing different US training programs responded. There was considerable consensus on cut-off scores for each item and trainee level between panelists, with moderate (0.62) to very high (0.95) consensus scores depending on assessment item. Further analyses demonstrated that the difference between supervised and unsupervised skill levels was significantly meaningful for all items. Finally, minimum-passing scores for each item was established. Conclusion: We defined performance standards for the cross-institutional mastoidectomy assessment tool using the Angoff method. These cut-off scores that can be used to determine when trainees can progress from performance under supervision to performance without supervision. This can be used to guide training in a competency-based training curriculum.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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