Leizl Joy Nayahangan1, Kristina Rue Nielsen2,3, Elisabeth Albrecht-Beste4, Michael Bachmann Nielsen3,5, Charlotte Paltved6, Karen Gilboe Lindorff-Larsen7, Bjørn Ulrik Nielsen8, Lars Konge2,5. 1. Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation, The Capital Region of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark. leizl.joy.nayahangan@regionh.dk. 2. Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation, The Capital Region of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark. 3. Department of Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. 4. Department of Clinical Physiology, Nuclear Medicine and PET, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. 5. Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 6. MidtSim - Centre for Human Resources, Central Region of Denmark and Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. 7. NordSim - Centre for Skills Training and Simulation, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark. 8. Sim-C - the Simulation Centre of Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: New training modalities such as simulation are widely accepted in radiology; however, development of effective simulation-based training programs is challenging. They are often unstructured and based on convenience or coincidence. The study objective was to perform a nationwide needs assessment to identify and prioritize technical procedures that should be included in a simulation-based curriculum. METHODS: A needs assessment using the Delphi method was completed among 91 key leaders in radiology. Round 1 identified technical procedures that radiologists should learn. Round 2 explored frequency of procedure, number of radiologists performing the procedure, risk and/or discomfort for patients, and feasibility for simulation. Round 3 was elimination and prioritization of procedures. RESULTS: Response rates were 67 %, 70 % and 66 %, respectively. In Round 1, 22 technical procedures were included. Round 2 resulted in pre-prioritization of procedures. In round 3, 13 procedures were included in the final prioritized list. The three highly prioritized procedures were ultrasound-guided (US) histological biopsy and fine-needle aspiration, US-guided needle puncture and catheter drainage, and basic abdominal ultrasound. CONCLUSION: A needs assessment identified and prioritized 13 technical procedures to include in a simulation-based curriculum. The list may be used as guide for development of training programs. KEY POINTS: • Simulation-based training can supplement training on patients in radiology. • Development of simulation-based training should follow a structured approach. • The CAMES Needs Assessment Formula explores needs for simulation training. • A national Delphi study identified and prioritized procedures suitable for simulation training. • The prioritized list serves as guide for development of courses in radiology.
OBJECTIVES: New training modalities such as simulation are widely accepted in radiology; however, development of effective simulation-based training programs is challenging. They are often unstructured and based on convenience or coincidence. The study objective was to perform a nationwide needs assessment to identify and prioritize technical procedures that should be included in a simulation-based curriculum. METHODS: A needs assessment using the Delphi method was completed among 91 key leaders in radiology. Round 1 identified technical procedures that radiologists should learn. Round 2 explored frequency of procedure, number of radiologists performing the procedure, risk and/or discomfort for patients, and feasibility for simulation. Round 3 was elimination and prioritization of procedures. RESULTS: Response rates were 67 %, 70 % and 66 %, respectively. In Round 1, 22 technical procedures were included. Round 2 resulted in pre-prioritization of procedures. In round 3, 13 procedures were included in the final prioritized list. The three highly prioritized procedures were ultrasound-guided (US) histological biopsy and fine-needle aspiration, US-guided needle puncture and catheter drainage, and basic abdominal ultrasound. CONCLUSION: A needs assessment identified and prioritized 13 technical procedures to include in a simulation-based curriculum. The list may be used as guide for development of training programs. KEY POINTS: • Simulation-based training can supplement training on patients in radiology. • Development of simulation-based training should follow a structured approach. • The CAMES Needs Assessment Formula explores needs for simulation training. • A national Delphi study identified and prioritized procedures suitable for simulation training. • The prioritized list serves as guide for development of courses in radiology.
Entities:
Keywords:
Curriculum; Delphi technique; Needs assessment; Radiology; Simulation training
Authors: Lars Konge; Charlotte Ringsted; Flemming Bjerrum; Martin G Tolsgaard; Mikael Bitsch; Jette L Sørensen; Torben V Schroeder Journal: J Surg Educ Date: 2015 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.891
Authors: Ivan R Diamond; Robert C Grant; Brian M Feldman; Paul B Pencharz; Simon C Ling; Aideen M Moore; Paul W Wales Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Mia Louise Østergaard; Kristina Rue Nielsen; Elisabeth Albrecht-Beste; Annette Kjær Ersbøll; Lars Konge; Michael Bachmann Nielsen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-01-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Signe Thim; Leizl Joy Nayahangan; Charlotte Paltved; Rune Dall Jensen; Lars Konge; Niels Thomas Hertel; Thomas Balslev Journal: BMJ Paediatr Open Date: 2020-08-18
Authors: Mia Louise Østergaard; Lars Konge; Niklas Kahr; Elisabeth Albrecht-Beste; Michael Bachmann Nielsen; Kristina Rue Nielsen Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2019-05-06
Authors: Nadja A Farshad-Amacker; Till Bay; Andrea B Rosskopf; José M Spirig; Florian Wanivenhaus; Christian W A Pfirrmann; Mazda Farshad Journal: Eur Radiol Exp Date: 2020-02-04
Authors: Reinhard Kaufmann; Christoph J Zech; Michael Deutschmann; Bernhard Scharinger; Stefan Hecht; Klaus Hergan; Richard Rezar; Wolfgang Hitzl; Matthias Meissnitzer Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2022-04-09
Authors: Stephanie E Combs; Angelika Bilger; Christian Diehl; Eva Bretzinger; Hannah Lorenz; Oliver Oehlke; Hanno M Specht; Anna Kirstein; Anca-Ligia Grosu Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2018-04-25 Impact factor: 4.452