| Literature DB >> 35614019 |
Dara Dasawulansari Syamsuri1, Brahmana Askandar Tjokroprawiro1, Eighty Mardiyan Kurniawati1, Budi Utomo2, Djoko Kuswanto3.
Abstract
PURPOSE: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the number of abdominal hysterectomy procedures decreased in Indonesia. The existing commercial abdominal hysterectomy simulation model is expensive and difficult to reuse. This study compared residents' abdominal hysterectomy skills after simulation-based training using the Surabaya hysterectomy mannequin following a video demonstration.Entities:
Keywords: Gynecology; Hysterectomy; Indonesia; Manikins; Simulation training
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35614019 PMCID: PMC9149772 DOI: 10.3352/jeehp.2022.19.11
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Educ Eval Health Prof ISSN: 1975-5937
Fig. 1.Surabaya hysterectomy mannequin. (A) Main body model. (B) Internal genitalia simulation model in the main body. (C) Uterine assembly.
Fig. 2.Study design. a)Scored using validated assessment tools: the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills and the Global Rating Scale. b)Using the Surabaya hysterectomy mannequin.
Participant characteristics in the video-based group (group 1), simulation-based group (group 2), and combination group (group 3)
| Characteristic | Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (yr) | 31.64±2.541 | 30.90±2.119 | 30.82±2.960 | 0.717 |
| Gender | 0.423 | |||
| Male | 7 (63.6) | 8 (72.7) | 5 (45.5) | |
| Female | 4 (36.4) | 3 (27.3) | 6 (54.5) | |
| Residency year | 0.889 | |||
| 3rd year | 5 (45.5) | 5 (45.5) | 6 (54.5) | |
| 4th year | 6 (54.5) | 6 (54.5) | 5 (45.5) | |
| Frequency of assistance in TAH | 0.922 | |||
| None | 1 (9.1) | 2 (18.2) | 1 (9.1) | |
| 1-5 | 4 (36.4) | 3 (27.3) | 5 (45.5) | |
| 6-10 | 5 (45.5) | 6 (54.5) | 3 (27.3) | |
| > 10 | 1 (9.1) | 0 | 2 (18.2) | |
| Frequency of TAH performed under supervision | 1.000 | |||
| None | 8 (72.7) | 8 (72.7) | 8 (72.7) | |
| 1-5 | 3 (33.3) | 3 (33.3) | 3 (33.3) | |
| 6-10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| >10 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or number (%).
TAH, total abdominal hysterectomy.
Validity test of the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills
| No. | Checklist | Pearson correlation value | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Laparotomy and development of the visual field | 0.6713 | Valid |
| 2 | Ligate and cut the round ligament | 0.7018 | Valid |
| 3 | Incises the anterior leaf of the broad ligament | 0.6850 | Valid |
| 4 | Clamp, cut, and ligate the ovarian ligament and fallopian tube (or the infundibulopelvic ligament) | 0.6713 | Valid |
| 5 | Mobilize the bladder | 0.7018 | Valid |
| 6 | Clamp, cut, and ligate the uterine artery and vein | 0.8222 | Valid |
| 7 | Clamp, cut, and ligate the cardinal ligament/sacrouterine ligament | 0.8035 | Valid |
| 8 | Remove the uterus | 0.9307 | Valid |
| 9 | Close the vaginal cuff | 0.8222 | Valid |
| 10 | Perform hemostasis | 0.8035 | Valid |
| 11 | Close the abdominal wall | 0.8222 | Valid |
Reliability test of the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills
| No. of items | Cronbach’s α | Correlation coefficient | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | 0.719 | 0.6319 | Reliable |
Validity test of the Global Rating Scale
| No. | Checklist | Pearson correlation value | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Respect for tissue | 0.8131 | Valid |
| 2 | Time and motion | 0.7497 | Valid |
| 3 | Instrument handling | 0.7696 | Valid |
| 4 | Knowledge of instrument | 0.7635 | Valid |
| 5 | Flow of operation | 0.7583 | Valid |
| 6 | Use of assistants | 0.8589 | Valid |
| 7 | Knowledge of specific procedure | 0.7497 | Valid |
Reliability test of the Global Rating Scale
| No. of items | Cronbach’s α | Correlation coefficient | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | 0.884 | 0.6319 | Reliable |
Pre- and post-test scores for the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills in the video-based group (group 1), simulation-based group (group 2), and combination group (group 3)
| Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | P-value | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-test | Post-test | Pre-test | Post-test | Pre-test | Post-test | Pre-test | Post-test | |
| Mean | 6.64±2.335 | 9.18±2.359 | 5.91±2.700 | 9.73±1.849 | 5.82±3.027 | 10.45±0.688 | 0.718 | 0.487 |
| 3rd year | 5.20±2.864 | 7.60±2.702 | 3.80±2.168 | 9.00±2.550 | 4.50±3.209 | 10.17±0.753 | 0.702 | 0.244 |
| 4th year | 7.83±0.753 | 10.50±0.837 | 7.67±1.633 | 10.33±0.816 | 7.40±2.074 | 0.80±0.447 | 0.904 | 0.569 |
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.
Pre- and post-test differences in the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills scores
| Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean difference | 2.55 (2.19–2.90) | 3.82 (2.41–5.22) | 4.64 (2.90–6.37) |
|
| 3rd year | 2.40 (1.72–3.08) | 5.20 (2.37–8.03) | 5.67 (2.88–8.46) |
|
| 4th year | 2.67 (2.12–3.21) | 2.67 (1.58–3.75) | 3.40 (0.83–5.97) | 0.877 |
Values are presented as mean (95% confidence interval). The bold type is considered statistically significant.
Mean pre- and post-test scores of the Global Rating Scale in the video-based group (group 1), simulation-based group (group 2), and combination group (group 3)
| Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | P-value | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-test | Post-test | Pre-test | Post-test | Pre-test | Post-test | Pre-test | Post-test | |
| Mean | 23.36±4.342 | 28.55±4.367 | 21.27±4.496 | 28.45±3.934 | 22.27±5.159 | 32.27±1.272 | 0.567 |
|
| 3rd year | 20.40±4.930 | 26.00±4.690 | 18.20±4.087 | 26.00±4.743 | 19.17±4.446 | 32.00±0.894 | 0.816 | 0.055 |
| 4th year | 25.75±0.957 | 31.00±3.367 | 26.00±1.000 | 31.33±0.577 | 27.33±2.082 | 33.00±1.000 | 0.365 | 0.139 |
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or number (%). The bold type is considered statistically significant.
Pre- and post-test differences in the Global Rating Scale scores
| Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean difference | 5.18 (3.99–6.38) | 7.18 (6.11–8.26) | 10.00 (7.01–12.99) |
|
| 3rd year | 5.60 (4.49–6.71) | 7.80 (6.44–9.16) | 12.83 (8.61–17.05) |
|
| 4th year | 5.25 (0.68–9.82) | 5.33 (3.90–6.77) | 5.67 (2.80–8.54) | 0.357 |
Values are presented as mean (95% confidence interval). The bold type is considered statistically significant.
Fig. 3.Mean differences in Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills scores, with P-values for pairwise comparisons. *P<0.05.
Fig. 4.Mean differences in Global Rating Scale scores, with P-values for pairwise comparisons. *P<0.05.