C Rizan1, J Ansell2, T W Tilston1, N Warren2, J Torkington3. 1. Cardiff University , UK. 2. Welsh Institute for Minimal Access Therapy , UK. 3. Cardiff and Vale University Health Board , UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Self-assessment is a way of improving technical capabilities without the need for trainer feedback. It can identify areas for improvement and promote professional medical development. The aim of this review was to identify whether self-assessment is an accurate form of technical skills appraisal in general surgery. METHODS: The PubMed, MEDLINE(®), Embase(™) and Cochrane databases were searched for studies assessing the reliability of self-assessment of technical skills in general surgery. For each study, we recorded the skills assessed and the evaluation methods used. Common endpoints between studies were compared to provide recommendations based on the levels of evidence. RESULTS: Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria from 22,292 initial papers. There was no level 1 evidence published. All papers compared the correlation between self-appraisal versus an expert score but differed in the technical skills assessment and the evaluation tools used. The accuracy of self-assessment improved with increasing experience (level 2 recommendation), age (level 3 recommendation) and the use of video playback (level 3 recommendation). Accuracy was reduced by stressful learning environments (level 2 recommendation), lack of familiarity with assessment tools (level 3 recommendation) and in advanced surgical procedures (level 3 recommendation). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence exists to support the reliability of self-assessment of technical skills in general surgery. Several variables have been shown to affect the accuracy of self-assessment of technical skills. Future work should focus on evaluating the reliability of self-assessment during live operating procedures.
INTRODUCTION: Self-assessment is a way of improving technical capabilities without the need for trainer feedback. It can identify areas for improvement and promote professional medical development. The aim of this review was to identify whether self-assessment is an accurate form of technical skills appraisal in general surgery. METHODS: The PubMed, MEDLINE(®), Embase(™) and Cochrane databases were searched for studies assessing the reliability of self-assessment of technical skills in general surgery. For each study, we recorded the skills assessed and the evaluation methods used. Common endpoints between studies were compared to provide recommendations based on the levels of evidence. RESULTS: Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria from 22,292 initial papers. There was no level 1 evidence published. All papers compared the correlation between self-appraisal versus an expert score but differed in the technical skills assessment and the evaluation tools used. The accuracy of self-assessment improved with increasing experience (level 2 recommendation), age (level 3 recommendation) and the use of video playback (level 3 recommendation). Accuracy was reduced by stressful learning environments (level 2 recommendation), lack of familiarity with assessment tools (level 3 recommendation) and in advanced surgical procedures (level 3 recommendation). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence exists to support the reliability of self-assessment of technical skills in general surgery. Several variables have been shown to affect the accuracy of self-assessment of technical skills. Future work should focus on evaluating the reliability of self-assessment during live operating procedures.
Keywords:
General surgery; Self-assessment; Technical skills
Authors: Luke P Brewster; Donald A Risucci; Raymond J Joehl; Fred N Littooy; Barbara K Temeck; Patrice Gabler Blair; Ajit K Sachdeva Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Maureen M Tedesco; Jimmy J Pak; E John Harris; Thomas M Krummel; Ronald L Dalman; Jason T Lee Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2008-04-18 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Pieter J van Empel; Mathilde G E Verdam; Judith A Huirne; H Jaap Bonjer; W Jeroen Meijerink; Fedde Scheele Journal: J Obstet Gynaecol Res Date: 2013-03-17 Impact factor: 1.730
Authors: David A Davis; Paul E Mazmanian; Michael Fordis; R Van Harrison; Kevin E Thorpe; Laure Perrier Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-09-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Sofia Erestam; David Bock; Annette Erichsen Andersson; Anders Bjartell; Stefan Carlsson; Karin Stinesen Kollberg; Daniel Sjoberg; Gunnar Steineck; Johan Stranne; Thordis Thorsteinsdottir; Stavros Tyritzis; Anna Wallerstedt Lantz; Peter Wiklund; Eva Angenete; Eva Haglind Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-03-18 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Frederike J C Haverkamp; Tristan A J van Leest; Måns Muhrbeck; Rigo Hoencamp; Andreas Wladis; Edward C T H Tan Journal: World J Emerg Surg Date: 2022-03-05 Impact factor: 5.469