Novel Performance Rating Instruments for Gynecological Procedures in Primary Care: A Pilot Study.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Family Medicine Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-11 DOI:10.22454/FamMed.2023.261011
Parisa Rezaiefar, Nisha Waqas, Douglas Archibald, Susan Humphrey-Murto
{"title":"Novel Performance Rating Instruments for Gynecological Procedures in Primary Care: A Pilot Study.","authors":"Parisa Rezaiefar, Nisha Waqas, Douglas Archibald, Susan Humphrey-Murto","doi":"10.22454/FamMed.2023.261011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong> Improving training and confirming the acquisition of gynecological procedure skills for family physicians (FPs) is crucial for safe health care delivery. The objectives of this study were to (a) develop performance rating instruments for four gynecological procedures, and (b) pilot them to provide preliminary validity evidence using modern validity theory.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong> Sixteen academic FPs and gynecologists participated in a modified Delphi technique to develop procedure-specific checklists (PSCs) for four procedures: intrauterine device insertion, endometrial biopsy, punch biopsy of the vulva, and routine pessary care. We modified a previously validated global rating scale (GRS) for ambulatory settings. Using prerecorded videos, 19 academic FPs piloted instruments to rate one first-year and one second-year family medicine resident's performance. They were blinded to the level of training. We compared the mean scores for PSCs and GRS for each procedure using paired samples t tests and Cohen's d to estimate effect sizes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> Consensus on items for the final PSCs was reached after two Delphi rounds. PSC and GRS scores were numerically higher for the second-year resident than the first-year resident for every procedure, with statistically significant differences for six of eight comparisons (P&lt;.05). All comparisons demonstrated large effect sizes (Cohen's d&gt;0.8). Both instruments received high scores for ease of use by raters.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong> We developed novel performance rating instruments for four gynecological procedures and provided preliminary validity evidence for their use for formative feedback in a simulation setting. This pilot study suggests that these instruments may facilitate the training and documentation of family medicine trainees' skills in gynecological procedures.</p>","PeriodicalId":50456,"journal":{"name":"Family Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"234-241"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11189117/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Family Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22454/FamMed.2023.261011","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objectives:  Improving training and confirming the acquisition of gynecological procedure skills for family physicians (FPs) is crucial for safe health care delivery. The objectives of this study were to (a) develop performance rating instruments for four gynecological procedures, and (b) pilot them to provide preliminary validity evidence using modern validity theory.

Methods:  Sixteen academic FPs and gynecologists participated in a modified Delphi technique to develop procedure-specific checklists (PSCs) for four procedures: intrauterine device insertion, endometrial biopsy, punch biopsy of the vulva, and routine pessary care. We modified a previously validated global rating scale (GRS) for ambulatory settings. Using prerecorded videos, 19 academic FPs piloted instruments to rate one first-year and one second-year family medicine resident's performance. They were blinded to the level of training. We compared the mean scores for PSCs and GRS for each procedure using paired samples t tests and Cohen's d to estimate effect sizes.

Results:  Consensus on items for the final PSCs was reached after two Delphi rounds. PSC and GRS scores were numerically higher for the second-year resident than the first-year resident for every procedure, with statistically significant differences for six of eight comparisons (P<.05). All comparisons demonstrated large effect sizes (Cohen's d>0.8). Both instruments received high scores for ease of use by raters.

Conclusions:  We developed novel performance rating instruments for four gynecological procedures and provided preliminary validity evidence for their use for formative feedback in a simulation setting. This pilot study suggests that these instruments may facilitate the training and documentation of family medicine trainees' skills in gynecological procedures.

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
用于初级保健妇科手术的新型性能评定仪器:一项试点研究。
背景和目标:改善培训并确认家庭医生(FP)获得妇科手术技能对安全提供医疗保健至关重要。本研究的目的是(a)开发四种妇科手术的绩效评估工具,以及(b)使用现代有效性理论对其进行试点,以提供初步的有效性证据。方法:16名学术FPs和妇科医生参与了一项改良的Delphi技术,为四种手术制定了程序特异性检查表(PSC):宫内节育器插入、子宫内膜活检、外阴穿刺活检和常规子宫托护理。我们修改了先前验证的门诊环境全球评分量表(GRS)。使用预先录制的视频,19名学术FP试用仪器对一名一年级和一名二年级家庭医学住院医师的表现进行评分。他们对训练水平视而不见。我们使用配对样本t检验和Cohen’s d对每个程序的PSC和GRS的平均得分进行了比较,以估计效果大小。结果:经过两轮德尔菲调查,就最终PSCs的项目达成了共识。在每项手术中,第二年住院患者的PSC和GRS评分在数字上都高于第一年住院患者,八次比较中有六次具有统计学显著差异(P<;.05)。所有比较都显示出较大的效果大小(Cohen’s d>;0.8)。这两种工具都因评分者易于使用而获得高分。结论:我们为四种妇科手术开发了新的绩效评估工具,并为它们在模拟环境中用于形成性反馈提供了初步的有效性证据。这项试点研究表明,这些仪器可能有助于培训和记录家庭医学学员的妇科手术技能。
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
Family Medicine
Family Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
21.10%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Family Medicine, the official journal of the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine, publishes original research, systematic reviews, narrative essays, and policy analyses relevant to the discipline of family medicine, particularly focusing on primary care medical education, health workforce policy, and health services research. Journal content is not limited to educational research from family medicine educators; and we welcome innovative, high-quality contributions from authors in a variety of specialties and academic fields.
期刊最新文献
Dancing in the Rain. Practice Intention: Addressing the Needs of Diverse Underserved Communities in Medical Education. Underrepresented in Medicine Mentorship Program: Perceived Benefits and Lessons Learned. Authors' Response to "Anticipating Uncertainty: A New Frontier in Family Medicine Training". Anticipating Uncertainty: A New Frontier in Family Medicine Training.
×
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