Mikael Johannes Vuokko Henriksen1,2, Troels Wienecke3,4, Helle Thagesen4, Rikke Vita Borre Jacobsen3,5, Yousif Subhi3,6, Charlotte Ringsted7, Lars Konge8,3. 1. Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation, The Capital Region of Denmark, Rigshospitalet section 5404, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark. mikael.johannes.vuokko.henriksen@regionh.dk. 2. Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. mikael.johannes.vuokko.henriksen@regionh.dk. 3. Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 4. Department of Neurology, Zealand University Hospital, Roskilde, Denmark. 5. Center for Head and Orthopedic/UFU 4231 Anesthesiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. 6. Department of Ophthalmology, Zealand University Hospital, Roskilde, Denmark. 7. Centre for Health Science Education, Faculty of Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. 8. Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation, The Capital Region of Denmark, Rigshospitalet section 5404, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lumbar puncture is a common procedure in many specialties. The procedure serves to diagnose life-threatening conditions, often requiring rapid performance. However, junior doctors possess uncertainties regarding performing the procedure and frequently perform below expectations. Hence, proper training and assessment of performance is crucial before entering clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To develop and collect validity evidence for an assessment tool for lumbar puncture performance, including a standard to determine when trainees are ready for clinical practice. DESIGN: Development of a new tool, based on clinician interviews and a literature review, was followed by an explorative study to gather validity evidence. PARTICIPANTS AND MAIN MEASURES: We interviewed 12 clinicians from different specialties. The assessment tool was used to assess 11 doctors at the advanced beginners' level and 18 novices performing the procedure in a simulated, ward-like setting with a standardized patient. Procedural performance was assessed by three content experts. We used generalizability theory to explore reliability. The discriminative ability of the tool was explored by comparing performance scores between the two groups. The contrasting groups method was used to set a pass/fail standard and the consequences of this was explored. KEY RESULTS: The interviews identified that in addition to the technical aspects of the procedure, non-technical elements involving planning and conducting the procedure are important. Cronbach's alpha = 0.92, Generalizability-coefficient was 0.88 and a Decision-study found one rater was sufficient for low-stakes assessments (G-coefficient 0.71). The discriminative ability was confirmed by a significant difference between the mean scores of novices, 40.9 (SD 6.1) and of advanced beginners, 47.8 (SD 4.0), p = 0.004. A standard of 44.0 was established which was consistent with the raters' global judgments of pass/fail. CONCLUSION: We developed and demonstrated strong validity evidence for the lumbar puncture assessment tool. The tool can be used to assess readiness for practice.
BACKGROUND: Lumbar puncture is a common procedure in many specialties. The procedure serves to diagnose life-threatening conditions, often requiring rapid performance. However, junior doctors possess uncertainties regarding performing the procedure and frequently perform below expectations. Hence, proper training and assessment of performance is crucial before entering clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To develop and collect validity evidence for an assessment tool for lumbar puncture performance, including a standard to determine when trainees are ready for clinical practice. DESIGN: Development of a new tool, based on clinician interviews and a literature review, was followed by an explorative study to gather validity evidence. PARTICIPANTS AND MAIN MEASURES: We interviewed 12 clinicians from different specialties. The assessment tool was used to assess 11 doctors at the advanced beginners' level and 18 novices performing the procedure in a simulated, ward-like setting with a standardized patient. Procedural performance was assessed by three content experts. We used generalizability theory to explore reliability. The discriminative ability of the tool was explored by comparing performance scores between the two groups. The contrasting groups method was used to set a pass/fail standard and the consequences of this was explored. KEY RESULTS: The interviews identified that in addition to the technical aspects of the procedure, non-technical elements involving planning and conducting the procedure are important. Cronbach's alpha = 0.92, Generalizability-coefficient was 0.88 and a Decision-study found one rater was sufficient for low-stakes assessments (G-coefficient 0.71). The discriminative ability was confirmed by a significant difference between the mean scores of novices, 40.9 (SD 6.1) and of advanced beginners, 47.8 (SD 4.0), p = 0.004. A standard of 44.0 was established which was consistent with the raters' global judgments of pass/fail. CONCLUSION: We developed and demonstrated strong validity evidence for the lumbar puncture assessment tool. The tool can be used to assess readiness for practice.
Entities:
Keywords:
medical education; medical education – clinical skills training; medical education-assessment/evaluation
Authors: Eldar Søreide; Laurie Morrison; Ken Hillman; Koen Monsieurs; Kjetil Sunde; David Zideman; Mickey Eisenberg; Fritz Sterz; Vinay M Nadkarni; Jasmeet Soar; Jerry P Nolan Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2013-08-03 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Faizal A Haji; Rabia Khan; Glenn Regehr; Gary Ng; Sandrine de Ribaupierre; Adam Dubrowski Journal: Med Educ Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 6.251
Authors: Furqan Shaikh; Jack Brzezinski; Sarah Alexander; Cristian Arzola; Jose C A Carvalho; Joseph Beyene; Lillian Sung Journal: BMJ Date: 2013-03-26
Authors: Sean C G Martin; Mario K C H Teo; Adam M H Young; Ian M Godber; Sachin S Mandalia; Edward J St George; Calum McGregor Journal: Br J Neurosurg Date: 2015-09-16 Impact factor: 1.596
Authors: Mikael Johannes Vuokko Henriksen; Troels Wienecke; Helle Thagesen; Rikke Borre Vita Jacobsen; Yousif Subhi; Ryan Brydges; Charlotte Ringsted; Lars Konge Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2017-11-13 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Harald Hampel; Leslie M Shaw; Paul Aisen; Christopher Chen; Alberto Lleó; Takeshi Iwatsubo; Atsushi Iwata; Masahito Yamada; Takeshi Ikeuchi; Jianping Jia; Huali Wang; Charlotte E Teunissen; Elaine Peskind; Kaj Blennow; Jeffrey Cummings; Andrea Vergallo Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2021-05-27 Impact factor: 16.655
Authors: Samuel O Noonan; Scott Hetzel; Kenneth J Noonan; John E Herzenberg; Donald S Bae; Benjamin J Shore Journal: J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev Date: 2022-02-15