BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine if a cognitive task analysis (CTA) could capture steps and decision points that were not articulated during traditional teaching of a colonoscopy. METHODS: Three expert colorectal surgeons were videotaped performing a colonoscopy. After the videotapes were transcribed, the experts participated in a CTA. A 26-step procedural checklist and a 16-step cognitive demands table was created by using information obtained in the CTA. The videotape transcriptions were transposed onto the procedural checklist and cognitive demands table to identify steps and decision points that were omitted during traditional teaching. RESULTS: Surgeon A described 50% of "how-to" steps and 43% of decision points. Surgeon B described 30% of steps and 25% of decisions. Surgeon C described 26% of steps and 38% of cognitive decisions. CONCLUSIONS: By using CTA, we were able to identify relevant steps and decision points that were omitted during traditional teaching by all 3 experts.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine if a cognitive task analysis (CTA) could capture steps and decision points that were not articulated during traditional teaching of a colonoscopy. METHODS: Three expert colorectal surgeons were videotaped performing a colonoscopy. After the videotapes were transcribed, the experts participated in a CTA. A 26-step procedural checklist and a 16-step cognitive demands table was created by using information obtained in the CTA. The videotape transcriptions were transposed onto the procedural checklist and cognitive demands table to identify steps and decision points that were omitted during traditional teaching. RESULTS: Surgeon A described 50% of "how-to" steps and 43% of decision points. Surgeon B described 30% of steps and 25% of decisions. Surgeon C described 26% of steps and 38% of cognitive decisions. CONCLUSIONS: By using CTA, we were able to identify relevant steps and decision points that were omitted during traditional teaching by all 3 experts.
Authors: Sudeep Hegde; Mark A Gromski; Tansel Halic; Melih Turkseven; Zhaohui Xia; Berk Çetinsaya; Mandeep S Sawhney; Daniel B Jones; Suvranu De; Cullen D Jackson Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-05-17 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Anna H de Vries; Arno M M Muijtjens; Hilde G J van Genugten; Ad J M Hendrikx; Evert L Koldewijn; Barbara M A Schout; Cees P M van der Vleuten; Cordula Wagner; Irene M Tjiam; Jeroen J G van Merriënboer Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-06-05 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Mikael Johannes Vuokko Henriksen; Troels Wienecke; Helle Thagesen; Rikke Borre Vita Jacobsen; Yousif Subhi; Ryan Brydges; Charlotte Ringsted; Lars Konge Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2017-11-13 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Roger D Dias; Marco A Zenati; Heather M Conboy; Lori A Clarke; Leon J Osterweil; George S Avrunin; Steven J Yule Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2021-08-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Sarah E Peyre; Christian G Peyre; Jeffrey A Hagen; Maura E Sullivan; John C Lipham; Steven R Demeester; Jeffrey H Peters; Tom R Demeester Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2008-12-05 Impact factor: 4.584