Camille Faudeux1, Antoine Tran2, Audrey Dupont3, Jonathan Desmontils4, Isabelle Montaudié4, Jean Bréaud5, Marc Braun6, Jean-Paul Fournier5, Etienne Bérard7, Noémie Berlengi8, Cyril Schweitzer9, Hervé Haas4, Hervé Caci10, Amélie Gatin11, Lisa Giovannini-Chami12. 1. Pediatric Emergency Department, Hôpitaux pédiatriques de Nice CHU-Lenval, Nice, France; Pediatric Nephrology Department, CHU de Nice, Nice, France. 2. Pediatric Emergency Department, Hôpitaux pédiatriques de Nice CHU-Lenval, Nice, France; Medical Simulation Center, Faculty of Medicine of Nice, Université de Nice Sophia-Antipolis, Nice, France. 3. Medical Simulation Center, Faculty of Medicine of Nice, Université de Nice Sophia-Antipolis, Nice, France; Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Hôpitaux pédiatriques de Nice CHU-Lenval, Nice, France. 4. Pediatric Emergency Department, Hôpitaux pédiatriques de Nice CHU-Lenval, Nice, France. 5. Medical Simulation Center, Faculty of Medicine of Nice, Université de Nice Sophia-Antipolis, Nice, France; Université de Nice-Sophia Antipolis, Nice, France. 6. University Centre for Education by Medical Simulation (CUESIM)-The Virtual Hospital of Lorraine of the Faculty of Medicine of Nancy, France; Université de Nancy, Nancy, France. 7. Pediatric Nephrology Department, CHU de Nice, Nice, France; Université de Nice-Sophia Antipolis, Nice, France. 8. Pediatric Emergency Department, Hôpital d'enfants de Nancy, Nancy, France. 9. Université de Nancy, Nancy, France; Pediatric Emergency Department, Hôpital d'enfants de Nancy, Nancy, France. 10. Pediatric Outpatient Unit, Hôpitaux pédiatriques de Nice CHU-Lenval, Nice, France. 11. University Centre for Education by Medical Simulation (CUESIM)-The Virtual Hospital of Lorraine of the Faculty of Medicine of Nancy, France; Pediatric Emergency Department, Hôpital d'enfants de Nancy, Nancy, France. 12. Medical Simulation Center, Faculty of Medicine of Nice, Université de Nice Sophia-Antipolis, Nice, France; Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Hôpitaux pédiatriques de Nice CHU-Lenval, Nice, France; Université de Nice-Sophia Antipolis, Nice, France; Pediatric Pulmonology and Allergology Department, Hôpitaux pédiatriques de Nice CHU-Lenval, Nice, France. Electronic address: giovannini-chami.l@pediatrie-chulenval-nice.fr.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To develop a reliable and validated tool to evaluate technical resuscitation skills in a pediatric simulation setting. STUDY DESIGN: Four Resuscitation and Emergency Simulation Checklist for Assessment in Pediatrics (RESCAPE) evaluation tools were created, following international guidelines: intraosseous needle insertion, bag mask ventilation, endotracheal intubation, and cardiac massage. We applied a modified Delphi methodology evaluation to binary rating items. Reliability was assessed comparing the ratings of 2 observers (1 in real time and 1 after a video-recorded review). The tools were assessed for content, construct, and criterion validity, and for sensitivity to change. RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability, evaluated with Cohen kappa coefficients, was perfect or near-perfect (>0.8) for 92.5% of items and each Cronbach alpha coefficient was ≥0.91. Principal component analyses showed that all 4 tools were unidimensional. Significant increases in median scores with increasing levels of medical expertise were demonstrated for RESCAPE-intraosseous needle insertion (P = .0002), RESCAPE-bag mask ventilation (P = .0002), RESCAPE-endotracheal intubation (P = .0001), and RESCAPE-cardiac massage (P = .0037). Significantly increased median scores over time were also demonstrated during a simulation-based educational program. CONCLUSIONS: RESCAPE tools are reliable and validated tools for the evaluation of technical resuscitation skills in pediatric settings during simulation-based educational programs. They might also be used for medical practice performance evaluations.
OBJECTIVES: To develop a reliable and validated tool to evaluate technical resuscitation skills in a pediatric simulation setting. STUDY DESIGN: Four Resuscitation and Emergency Simulation Checklist for Assessment in Pediatrics (RESCAPE) evaluation tools were created, following international guidelines: intraosseous needle insertion, bag mask ventilation, endotracheal intubation, and cardiac massage. We applied a modified Delphi methodology evaluation to binary rating items. Reliability was assessed comparing the ratings of 2 observers (1 in real time and 1 after a video-recorded review). The tools were assessed for content, construct, and criterion validity, and for sensitivity to change. RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability, evaluated with Cohen kappa coefficients, was perfect or near-perfect (>0.8) for 92.5% of items and each Cronbach alpha coefficient was ≥0.91. Principal component analyses showed that all 4 tools were unidimensional. Significant increases in median scores with increasing levels of medical expertise were demonstrated for RESCAPE-intraosseous needle insertion (P = .0002), RESCAPE-bag mask ventilation (P = .0002), RESCAPE-endotracheal intubation (P = .0001), and RESCAPE-cardiac massage (P = .0037). Significantly increased median scores over time were also demonstrated during a simulation-based educational program. CONCLUSIONS: RESCAPE tools are reliable and validated tools for the evaluation of technical resuscitation skills in pediatric settings during simulation-based educational programs. They might also be used for medical practice performance evaluations.
Authors: Adam Ryason; Emil R Petrusa; Uwe Kruger; Zhaohui Xia; Vanessa T Wong; Daniel B Jones; Suvranu De; Stephanie B Jones Journal: J Educ Perioper Med Date: 2020-01-01