Literature DB >> 23386240

Is competency assessment at the specialist level achievable? A study for the national training programme in laparoscopic colorectal surgery in England.

Danilo Miskovic1, Melody Ni, Susannah M Wyles, Robin H Kennedy, Nader K Francis, Amjad Parvaiz, Chris Cunningham, Timothy A Rockall, Andrew M Gudgeon, Mark G Coleman, George B Hanna.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To develop, validate, and implement a competency assessment tool (CAT) for technical surgical performance in the context of a summative assessment process for the National Training Programme in Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery (NTP).
BACKGROUND: The NTP is an educational initiative by the National Cancer Action Team in England to safely increase the uptake of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. It is the first competency-based national educational initiative for specialist surgeons (consultants), and performance assessment is an integral part of the program.
METHODS: Content validity was sought using expert opinion by semistructured interviews and the Delphi method. For validity and reliability studies, NTP apprentices and experts were asked to submit video-recorded cases. Construct validity was established between delegates who passed the assessment and those who failed. Concurrent validity was tested by comparing scores with error counts as identified by observational clinical human reliability analysis. A fully crossed design, using generalizability theory methods and D-studies, was used for reliability.
FINDINGS: Interviews and the Delphi method revealed a list of characteristics for assessment. A hybrid structure combining task-specific and generic items was used to include important characteristics into the assessment format. Fifty-four cases were submitted. Overall reliability reached G(ACI) = 0.803 when using 2 cases and 2 assessors. Experts scored significantly better than apprentices (3.19 vs 2.60; P = 0.004), and apprentices who passed had better scores than those who failed (2.95 vs 2.28; P < 0.001). There was an inverse correlation between CAT scores and observational clinical human reliability analysis error counts (ρ = -0.520, P < 0.001). The combination of both methods reached overall sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 83.3%, a positive predictive value of 93.8%, and a negative predictive value of 100%.
CONCLUSIONS: The CAT can reliably assess technical performance in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. The use of CATs to judge specialist technical performance before embarking on independent practice of new procedures is achievable on a national scale and can be adapted by other specialties.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23386240     DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318275b72a

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg        ISSN: 0003-4932            Impact factor:   12.969


  20 in total

Review 1.  Laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic digestive surgery: Present and future directions.

Authors:  Juan C Rodríguez-Sanjuán; Marcos Gómez-Ruiz; Soledad Trugeda-Carrera; Carlos Manuel-Palazuelos; Antonio López-Useros; Manuel Gómez-Fleitas
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-02-14       Impact factor: 5.742

2.  Randomized controlled trial on the effect of coaching in simulated laparoscopic training.

Authors:  Simon J Cole; Hugh Mackenzie; Joon Ha; George B Hanna; Danilo Miskovic
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-11-07       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  What errors make a laparoscopic cancer surgery unsafe? An ad hoc analysis of competency assessment in the National Training Programme for laparoscopic colorectal surgery in England.

Authors:  Melody Ni; Hugh Mackenzie; Adam Widdison; John T Jenkins; Steve Mansfield; Tony Dixon; Dominic Slade; Mark G Coleman; George B Hanna
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-06-23       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Mentored Trainees have Similar Short-Term Outcomes to a Consultant Trainer Following Laparoscopic Colorectal Resection.

Authors:  Henry D De'Ath; Laurence Devoto; Chaitanya Mehta; James Bromilow; Tahseen Qureshi
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 3.352

5.  Training value of laparoscopic colorectal videos on the World Wide Web: a pilot study on the educational quality of laparoscopic right hemicolectomy videos.

Authors:  V Celentano; M Browning; C Hitchins; M C Giglio; M G Coleman
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-04-04       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 6.  Objective assessment of minimally invasive total mesorectal excision performance: a systematic review.

Authors:  N J Curtis; J Davids; J D Foster; N K Francis
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2017-05-03       Impact factor: 3.781

7.  Development and validation of the TOCO-TURBT tool: a summative assessment tool that measures surgical competency in transurethral resection of bladder tumour.

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

8.  A novel assessment tool for evaluating competence in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy.

Authors:  Katrine Jensen; René Horsleben Petersen; Henrik Jessen Hansen; William Walker; Jesper Holst Pedersen; Lars Konge
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-03-30       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  EAES classification of intraoperative adverse events in laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  N K Francis; N J Curtis; J A Conti; J D Foster; H J Bonjer; G B Hanna
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-02-12       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 10.  Video-based coaching in surgical education: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Knut Magne Augestad; Khayam Butt; Dejan Ignjatovic; Deborah S Keller; Ravi Kiran
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-11-20       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.