Bridget R O'Connell-Long1, Rebecca D Ray2, Jay N Nathwani2, Rebekah M Fiers2, Carla M Pugh2. 1. Department of Surgery, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin. Electronic address: boconnelllon@wisc.edu. 2. Department of Surgery, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate whether junior surgical residents had successfully mastered bladder catheterization. Our hypothesis was that surgical residents would be overly confident in their abilities and underestimate the potential for case complexity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PGY 2-4 surgery residents (n = 44) were given 15 min. to complete three of four bladder catheterization simulations. Participants reported their mastery by rating confidence using a 5-point Likert scale. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to test predictors of procedure performance. RESULTS: Participants made a total of 228 errors with an average of 5.1 errors (standard deviation = 2.6) per participant. The most common errors included not maintaining the sterile field (52.0%), failure to get urine return (20.3%), and inflating the catheter balloon before urine return (8.4%). Some residents committed the same error more than once. Presimulation confidence ratings ranged from "1" being not confident to "5" being extremely confident. Average presimulation confidence was 4.42 (range 1-5, standard deviation = 0.85). Sixteen (36%) residents ranked their presimulation confidence in problem-solving abilities as "moderately confident" or below, whereas 28 (64%) were "very confident" or above. The lower the resident's presimulation confidence in problem-solving, the more errors they committed during the simulation (beta = -0.33, t = -2.15, P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The residents did not perform as well as they anticipated when presented with more complicated bladder catheterization scenarios. Simulation can be used to identify and expose potential errors that may occur during complex presentations of basic procedures. This type of training and assessment may facilitate mastery.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate whether junior surgical residents had successfully mastered bladder catheterization. Our hypothesis was that surgical residents would be overly confident in their abilities and underestimate the potential for case complexity. MATERIALS AND METHODS:PGY 2-4 surgery residents (n = 44) were given 15 min. to complete three of four bladder catheterization simulations. Participants reported their mastery by rating confidence using a 5-point Likert scale. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to test predictors of procedure performance. RESULTS:Participants made a total of 228 errors with an average of 5.1 errors (standard deviation = 2.6) per participant. The most common errors included not maintaining the sterile field (52.0%), failure to get urine return (20.3%), and inflating the catheter balloon before urine return (8.4%). Some residents committed the same error more than once. Presimulation confidence ratings ranged from "1" being not confident to "5" being extremely confident. Average presimulation confidence was 4.42 (range 1-5, standard deviation = 0.85). Sixteen (36%) residents ranked their presimulation confidence in problem-solving abilities as "moderately confident" or below, whereas 28 (64%) were "very confident" or above. The lower the resident's presimulation confidence in problem-solving, the more errors they committed during the simulation (beta = -0.33, t = -2.15, P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The residents did not perform as well as they anticipated when presented with more complicated bladder catheterization scenarios. Simulation can be used to identify and expose potential errors that may occur during complex presentations of basic procedures. This type of training and assessment may facilitate mastery.
Authors: C Christopher Smith; Grace C Huang; Lori R Newman; Peter F Clardy; David Feller-Kopman; Michael Cho; Trustin Ennacheril; Richard M Schwartzstein Journal: Simul Healthc Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 1.929
Authors: J Bréaud; D Chevallier; E Benizri; J-P Fournier; M Carles; J Delotte; N Venissac; A Myx; A Ianelli; J Levraut; D Jones; D Benchimol Journal: J Visc Surg Date: 2012-01-29 Impact factor: 2.043
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Carolyn V Gould; Craig A Umscheid; Rajender K Agarwal; Gretchen Kuntz; David A Pegues Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Nicoleta O Kolozsvari; Liane S Feldman; Melina C Vassiliou; Sebastian Demyttenaere; Michael L Hoover Journal: J Surg Educ Date: 2011-05-26 Impact factor: 2.891
Authors: Lana P Sturm; John A Windsor; Peter H Cosman; Patrick Cregan; Peter J Hewett; Guy J Maddern Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 12.969