Literature DB >> 26546381

Evaluation of Simulated Clinical Breast Exam Motion Patterns Using Marker-Less Video Tracking.

David P Azari1, Carla M Pugh1, Shlomi Laufer1, Calvin Kwan1, Chia-Hsiung Chen1, Thomas Y Yen1, Yu Hen Hu1, Robert G Radwin2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study investigates using marker-less video tracking to evaluate hands-on clinical skills during simulated clinical breast examinations (CBEs).
BACKGROUND: There are currently no standardized and widely accepted CBE screening techniques.
METHODS: Experienced physicians attending a national conference conducted simulated CBEs presenting different pathologies with distinct tumorous lesions. Single hand exam motion was recorded and analyzed using marker-less video tracking. Four kinematic measures were developed to describe temporal (time pressing and time searching) and spatial (area covered and distance explored) patterns.
RESULTS: Mean differences between time pressing, area covered, and distance explored varied across the simulated lesions. Exams were objectively categorized as either sporadic, localized, thorough, or efficient for both temporal and spatial categories based on spatiotemporal characteristics. The majority of trials were temporally or spatially thorough (78% and 91%), exhibiting proportionally greater time pressing and time searching (temporally thorough) and greater area probed with greater distance explored (spatially thorough). More efficient exams exhibited proportionally more time pressing with less time searching (temporally efficient) and greater area probed with less distance explored (spatially efficient). Just two (5.9 %) of the trials exhibited both high temporal and spatial efficiency.
CONCLUSIONS: Marker-less video tracking was used to discriminate different examination techniques and measure when an exam changes from general searching to specific probing. The majority of participants exhibited more thorough than efficient patterns. APPLICATION: Marker-less video kinematic tracking may be useful for quantifying clinical skills for training and assessment.
© 2015, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  examination technique; hands-on clinical examination; medical simulation; tactile inspection

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26546381      PMCID: PMC4924820          DOI: 10.1177/0018720815613919

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Factors        ISSN: 0018-7208            Impact factor:   2.888


  20 in total

1.  The Step 2 clinical-skills examination.

Authors:  Maxine A Papadakis
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-04-22       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 2.  Disparities in screening mammography. Current status, interventions and implications.

Authors:  Monica E Peek; Jini H Han
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Optimization of clinical breast examination.

Authors:  William H Goodson; Thomas K Hunt; Julia N Plotnik; Dan H Moore
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 4.965

Review 4.  The role of simulation in certification.

Authors:  Jo Buyske
Journal:  Surg Clin North Am       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 2.741

5.  Changes in clinical skills education resulting from the introduction of the USMLE step 2 clinical skills (CS) examination.

Authors:  William R Gilliland; Jeffrey La Rochelle; Richard Hawkins; Gerard F Dillon; Alex J Mechaber; Liselotte Dyrbye; Klara K Papp; Steven J Durning
Journal:  Med Teach       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 3.650

Review 6.  Performance and reporting of clinical breast examination: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Sharon McDonald; Debbie Saslow; Marianne H Alciati
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2004 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 508.702

Review 7.  Clinical breast examination: practical recommendations for optimizing performance and reporting.

Authors:  Debbie Saslow; Judy Hannan; Janet Osuch; Marianne H Alciati; Cornelia Baines; Mary Barton; Janet Kay Bobo; Cathy Coleman; Mary Dolan; Ginny Gaumer; Daniel Kopans; Susan Kutner; Dorothy S Lane; Herschel Lawson; Helen Meissner; Candace Moorman; Henry Pennypacker; Peggy Pierce; Eva Sciandra; Robert Smith; Ralph Coates
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2004 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 508.702

8.  Moving past normal force: capturing and classifying shear motion using 3D sensors.

Authors:  Calvin Kwan; Lawrence Salud; Chiagozie Ononye; Shenshen Zhao; Carla Pugh
Journal:  Stud Health Technol Inform       Date:  2012

9.  Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 10.  Screening clinical breast examination.

Authors:  Ismail Jatoi
Journal:  Surg Clin North Am       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 2.741

View more
  3 in total

1.  Familiarity and Communication in the Operating Room.

Authors:  Lane L Frasier; Sudha R Pavuluri Quamme; Yue Ma; Douglas Wiegmann; Glen Leverson; Eva H DuGoff; Caprice C Greenberg
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2018-11-15       Impact factor: 2.192

2.  Midwifery students better approximate their self-efficacy in clinical lactation after reflecting in and on their performance in the LactSim OSCE.

Authors:  Aria Grabowski; Olivia S Anderson; Ruth Zielinski; Melisa Scott; Lisa Hammer; Muriel Bassil; Samantha A Chuisano; Anna Sadovnikova
Journal:  Adv Simul (Lond)       Date:  2020-10-23

3.  Modeling Surgical Technical Skill Using Expert Assessment for Automated Computer Rating.

Authors:  David P Azari; Lane L Frasier; Sudha R Pavuluri Quamme; Caprice C Greenberg; Carla M Pugh; Jacob A Greenberg; Robert G Radwin
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 12.969

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.