OBJECTIVE: Traditional measures for evaluating resident surgical technical skills (e.g., case logs) assess operative volume but not level of surgical proficiency. Our goal was to compare the reliability and validity of 3 tools for measuring surgical skill among orthopedic residents when performing 3 open surgical approaches to the shoulder. METHODS: A total of 23 residents at different stages of their surgical training were tested for technical skill pertaining to 3 shoulder surgical approaches using the following measures: Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) checklists, the Global Rating Scale (GRS), and a final pass/fail assessment determined by 3 upper extremity surgeons. Adverse events were recorded. The Cronbach α coefficient was used to assess reliability of the OSATS checklists and GRS scores. Interrater reliability was calculated with intraclass correlation coefficients. Correlations among OSATS checklist scores, GRS scores, and pass/fail assessment were calculated with Spearman ρ. Validity of OSATS checklists was determined using analysis of variance with postgraduate year (PGY) as a between-subjects factor. Significance was set at p < 0.05 for all tests. RESULTS: Criterion validity was shown between the OSATS checklists and GRS for the 3 open shoulder approaches. Checklist scores showed superior interrater reliability compared with GRS and subjective pass/fail measurements. GRS scores were positively correlated across training years. The incidence of adverse events was significantly higher among PGY-1 and PGY-2 residents compared with more experienced residents. CONCLUSION: OSATS checklists are a valid and reliable assessment of technical skills across 3 surgical shoulder approaches. However, checklist scores do not measure quality of technique. Documenting adverse events is necessary to assess quality of technique and ultimate pass/fail status. Multiple methods of assessing surgical skill should be considered when evaluating orthopedic resident surgical performance. Copyright Â
OBJECTIVE: Traditional measures for evaluating resident surgical technical skills (e.g., case logs) assess operative volume but not level of surgical proficiency. Our goal was to compare the reliability and validity of 3 tools for measuring surgical skill among orthopedic residents when performing 3 open surgical approaches to the shoulder. METHODS: A total of 23 residents at different stages of their surgical training were tested for technical skill pertaining to 3 shoulder surgical approaches using the following measures: Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) checklists, the Global Rating Scale (GRS), and a final pass/fail assessment determined by 3 upper extremity surgeons. Adverse events were recorded. The Cronbach α coefficient was used to assess reliability of the OSATS checklists and GRS scores. Interrater reliability was calculated with intraclass correlation coefficients. Correlations among OSATS checklist scores, GRS scores, and pass/fail assessment were calculated with Spearman ρ. Validity of OSATS checklists was determined using analysis of variance with postgraduate year (PGY) as a between-subjects factor. Significance was set at p < 0.05 for all tests. RESULTS: Criterion validity was shown between the OSATS checklists and GRS for the 3 open shoulder approaches. Checklist scores showed superior interrater reliability compared with GRS and subjective pass/fail measurements. GRS scores were positively correlated across training years. The incidence of adverse events was significantly higher among PGY-1 and PGY-2 residents compared with more experienced residents. CONCLUSION: OSATS checklists are a valid and reliable assessment of technical skills across 3 surgical shoulder approaches. However, checklist scores do not measure quality of technique. Documenting adverse events is necessary to assess quality of technique and ultimate pass/fail status. Multiple methods of assessing surgical skill should be considered when evaluating orthopedic resident surgical performance. Copyright Â
Keywords:
Global Rating Scale; Medical Knowledge; Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills; Patient Care; Systems-Based Practice; competency evaluation; residency training
Authors: Birgitte Hougs Kjær; S Peter Magnusson; Susan Warming; Marius Henriksen; Michael Rindom Krogsgaard; Birgit Juul-Kristensen Journal: Trials Date: 2018-09-03 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Jeffrey J Olson; Bo Zhang; Diana Zhu; Evan T Zheng; George S M Dyer; Tamara D Rozental; Dawn M LaPorte Journal: JB JS Open Access Date: 2021-02-19