Elif Bilgic1, Satoshi Endo1, Ekaterina Lebedeva2, Madoka Takao1, Katherine M McKendy1, Yusuke Watanabe3, Liane S Feldman1, Melina C Vassiliou4. 1. Steinberg-Bernstein Centre for Minimally Invasive Surgery and Innovation, McGill University Health Centre, 1650, Cedar Avenue, L9. 313, Montreal, QC, H3G 1A4, Canada. 2. The Henry K.M. DeKuyper Education Centre, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada. 3. Department of Gastroenterological Surgery II, Hokkaido University Graduate School of Medicine, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan. 4. Steinberg-Bernstein Centre for Minimally Invasive Surgery and Innovation, McGill University Health Centre, 1650, Cedar Avenue, L9. 313, Montreal, QC, H3G 1A4, Canada. melina.vassiliou@mcgill.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A needs assessment identified a gap in teaching and assessment of laparoscopic suturing (LS) skills. The purpose of this review is to identify assessment tools that were used to assess LS skills, to evaluate validity evidence available, and to provide guidance for selecting the right assessment tool for specific assessment conditions. METHODS: Bibliographic databases were searched till April 2017. Full-text articles were included if they reported on assessment tools used in the operating room/simulation to (1) assess procedures that require LS or (2) specifically assess LS skills. RESULTS: Forty-two tools were identified, of which 26 were used for assessing LS skills specifically and 26 for procedures that require LS. Tools had the most evidence in internal structure and relationship to other variables, and least in consequences. CONCLUSION: Through identification and evaluation of assessment tools, the results of this review could be used as a guideline when implementing assessment tools into training programs.
BACKGROUND: A needs assessment identified a gap in teaching and assessment of laparoscopic suturing (LS) skills. The purpose of this review is to identify assessment tools that were used to assess LS skills, to evaluate validity evidence available, and to provide guidance for selecting the right assessment tool for specific assessment conditions. METHODS: Bibliographic databases were searched till April 2017. Full-text articles were included if they reported on assessment tools used in the operating room/simulation to (1) assess procedures that require LS or (2) specifically assess LS skills. RESULTS: Forty-two tools were identified, of which 26 were used for assessing LS skills specifically and 26 for procedures that require LS. Tools had the most evidence in internal structure and relationship to other variables, and least in consequences. CONCLUSION: Through identification and evaluation of assessment tools, the results of this review could be used as a guideline when implementing assessment tools into training programs.
Authors: Jason Y Lee; Phillip Mucksavage; David C Kerbl; Kathryn E Osann; Howard N Winfield; Kanav Kahol; Elspeth M McDougall Journal: J Endourol Date: 2012-01-04 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Cara R King; Nicole Donnellan; Richard Guido; Amanda Ecker; Andrew D Althouse; Suketu Mansuria Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Samer G Mattar; Adnan A Alseidi; Daniel B Jones; D Rohan Jeyarajah; Lee L Swanstrom; Ralph W Aye; Steven D Wexner; José M Martinez; Sharona B Ross; Michael M Awad; Morris E Franklin; Maurice E Arregui; Bruce D Schirmer; Rebecca M Minter Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Timothy M Kowalewski; Lee W White; Thomas S Lendvay; Iris S Jiang; Robert Sweet; Andrew Wright; Blake Hannaford; Mika N Sinanan Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2014-06-04 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Danielle D Antosh; Tamika Auguste; Elizabeth A George; Andrew I Sokol; Robert E Gutman; Cheryl B Iglesia; Sameer Y Desale; Amy J Park Journal: J Minim Invasive Gynecol Date: 2013-01-23 Impact factor: 4.137
Authors: Péter Etlinger; Catarina Barroso; Alice Miranda; João Moreira Pinto; Ruben Lamas-Pinheiro; Hélder Ferreira; Pedro Leão; Tamás Kovács; László Juhász; László Sasi Szabó; András Farkas; Péter Vajda; Attila Kálmán; Tibor Géczi; Zsolt Simonka; Tamás Cserni; Miklós Nógrády; Gergely H Fodor; Andrea Szabó; Jorge Correia-Pinto Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2021-05-17 Impact factor: 4.584