Identifying the Gap Between Novices and Experts in Fiberoptic Scope Control.

Haobo Ma, Xia Ruan, Vanessa T Wong, Wenjuan Guo, Yuguang Huang, John D Mitchell
{"title":"Identifying the Gap Between Novices and Experts in Fiberoptic Scope Control.","authors":"Haobo Ma,&nbsp;Xia Ruan,&nbsp;Vanessa T Wong,&nbsp;Wenjuan Guo,&nbsp;Yuguang Huang,&nbsp;John D Mitchell","doi":"10.46374/volxxiii_issue1_haoboma","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Fiberoptic intubation (FOI) is key in managing difficult airways. Good scope control increases efficiency and patient safety. Understanding the gap between novices and experts in scope control would help medical educators develop a feedback-based teaching approach for novices. We designed and used a checklist for evaluating the gap in fiberoptic scope control between novices and experts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twelve first-year anesthesiology residents (novice group) attended a lecture, followed by hands-on practice with a fiberoptic scope on a manikin. Five staff anesthesiologists (expert group) only did the hands-on practice. After practice, each participant was video-recorded while conducting an FOI on the manikin. Two senior anesthesiologists developed and used a 7-item checklist to assess the FOIs. Checklist scores and total times for FOIs were compared between groups using the Mann-Whitney <i>U</i> test. Internal consistency of the checklist items, interrater reliability, and the relationship between checklist score and total time for FOI were assessed with Cronbach alpha, Cohen kappa, and the Pearson correlation coefficient, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Experts had higher checklist scores than novices (<i>P</i> = .0016). The item with the lowest success rate for novices (50%) was keeping the scope straight. Novices spent more time on the FOI than experts (<i>P</i> = .0005). Cronbach alpha, Cohen kappa, and the Pearson correlation coefficient were 0.8699, 0.75, and -0.9454, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our checklist was used to detect differences in fiberoptic scope control skills between novices and experts. With a video-based assessment method, it can be used to develop a feedback-based teaching method for fiberoptic scope control.</p>","PeriodicalId":75067,"journal":{"name":"The journal of education in perioperative medicine : JEPM","volume":"23 1","pages":"E655"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7983185/pdf/i2333-0406-23-1-haoboma.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The journal of education in perioperative medicine : JEPM","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46374/volxxiii_issue1_haoboma","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Fiberoptic intubation (FOI) is key in managing difficult airways. Good scope control increases efficiency and patient safety. Understanding the gap between novices and experts in scope control would help medical educators develop a feedback-based teaching approach for novices. We designed and used a checklist for evaluating the gap in fiberoptic scope control between novices and experts.

Methods: Twelve first-year anesthesiology residents (novice group) attended a lecture, followed by hands-on practice with a fiberoptic scope on a manikin. Five staff anesthesiologists (expert group) only did the hands-on practice. After practice, each participant was video-recorded while conducting an FOI on the manikin. Two senior anesthesiologists developed and used a 7-item checklist to assess the FOIs. Checklist scores and total times for FOIs were compared between groups using the Mann-Whitney U test. Internal consistency of the checklist items, interrater reliability, and the relationship between checklist score and total time for FOI were assessed with Cronbach alpha, Cohen kappa, and the Pearson correlation coefficient, respectively.

Results: Experts had higher checklist scores than novices (P = .0016). The item with the lowest success rate for novices (50%) was keeping the scope straight. Novices spent more time on the FOI than experts (P = .0005). Cronbach alpha, Cohen kappa, and the Pearson correlation coefficient were 0.8699, 0.75, and -0.9454, respectively.

Conclusions: Our checklist was used to detect differences in fiberoptic scope control skills between novices and experts. With a video-based assessment method, it can be used to develop a feedback-based teaching method for fiberoptic scope control.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
识别光纤瞄准镜控制新手与专家之间的差距。
背景:纤维气管插管(FOI)是治疗气道困难的关键。良好的范围控制可以提高效率和患者安全。了解新手和专家在范围控制方面的差距将有助于医学教育者为新手开发一种基于反馈的教学方法。我们设计并使用了一份检查表来评估新手和专家在光纤瞄准镜控制方面的差距。方法:12名一年级麻醉学住院医师(新手组)参加讲座,然后在人体模型上使用纤维镜进行实践。5名工作人员麻醉医师(专家组)仅进行了动手练习。练习后,每个参与者在对人体模型进行FOI时都被录像。两名资深麻醉师开发并使用了一份包含7个项目的检查表来评估foi。使用Mann-Whitney U检验比较两组间FOIs的检查表得分和总次数。分别采用Cronbach alpha、Cohen kappa和Pearson相关系数评估量表项目的内部一致性、量表间信度以及量表得分与信息自由总时间的关系。结果:专家的检查表得分高于新手(P = 0.0016)。新手成功率最低(50%)的项目是保持瞄准镜的直线。新手在FOI上花费的时间比专家多(P = .0005)。Cronbach alpha、Cohen kappa和Pearson相关系数分别为0.8699、0.75和-0.9454。结论:我们的检查表用于检测新手和专家在光纤镜控制技能方面的差异。结合视频评价方法,可开发一种基于反馈的光纤瞄准镜控制教学方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Geographical Distribution of Newly Accredited Anesthesiology Training Programs in Relation to Health Professional Shortage Areas and Medically Underserved Populations. Identification of Candidate Characteristics that Predicted a Successful Anesthesiology Residency Program Match in 2024: An Anonymous, Prospective Survey. The Role of Ombuds in Graduate Medical Education: Fostering Wellness and Psychological Safety. Assessment and Recommendations for the Society of Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology Fellowship Websites. Development of a Prioritized Anesthesiology Residency Critical Care Content Outline.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1