Introduction of direct observation of procedural skills as workplace-based assessment tool in department of anesthesiology: Evaluation of students’ and teachers’ perceptions

P. Mathur
{"title":"Introduction of direct observation of procedural skills as workplace-based assessment tool in department of anesthesiology: Evaluation of students’ and teachers’ perceptions","authors":"P. Mathur","doi":"10.4103/bjoa.bjoa_59_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The direct observation of procedural skills (DOPS) was introduced for the workplace-based assessment of procedural skills. It offers an opportunity to provide feedback to trainees. This makes DOPS an authentic measure of clinical competence in anesthesiology training. The goal of this study was to assess the perceptions of both trainees and consultants regarding the use of DOPS and to evaluate the performance of anesthesia postgraduate (PG) trainees over consecutive assessments. Materials and Methods: After approval from the ethical committee and sensitization workshop, two exposures of DOPS per trainee were given for three common anesthesia skills as per their years in training. Thereafter anonymous feedback was collected from faculty and trainees to gather their perception regarding DOPS. Consecutive DOPS scores for trainees were analyzed. Data were presented in terms of percentages, mean, and standard deviation. A P value of <0.05 was considered significant. Results: More than 50% of participants were satisfied with the way DOPS was conducted and thought it was feasible for formative assessment. About 80% of participants were of the view that DOPS is helpful for anesthesia training and improving anesthesia procedural skills. Yet only 40%–50% favored the addition of DOPS to the departmental assessment plan. Significant improvement was observed in DOPS scores of PG trainees. Mean DOPS scores of postgraduate trainee year 1, 2, and 3 (JR 1, JR 2, and JR 3) increased from 2.6 to 4.8, 4 to 5.7, and 5.6 to 7, respectively (P < 0.05). Conclusions: DOPS may be considered as a useful tool for workplace-based assessment for anesthesia PG training.","PeriodicalId":8691,"journal":{"name":"Bali Journal of Anesthesiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bali Journal of Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/bjoa.bjoa_59_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The direct observation of procedural skills (DOPS) was introduced for the workplace-based assessment of procedural skills. It offers an opportunity to provide feedback to trainees. This makes DOPS an authentic measure of clinical competence in anesthesiology training. The goal of this study was to assess the perceptions of both trainees and consultants regarding the use of DOPS and to evaluate the performance of anesthesia postgraduate (PG) trainees over consecutive assessments. Materials and Methods: After approval from the ethical committee and sensitization workshop, two exposures of DOPS per trainee were given for three common anesthesia skills as per their years in training. Thereafter anonymous feedback was collected from faculty and trainees to gather their perception regarding DOPS. Consecutive DOPS scores for trainees were analyzed. Data were presented in terms of percentages, mean, and standard deviation. A P value of <0.05 was considered significant. Results: More than 50% of participants were satisfied with the way DOPS was conducted and thought it was feasible for formative assessment. About 80% of participants were of the view that DOPS is helpful for anesthesia training and improving anesthesia procedural skills. Yet only 40%–50% favored the addition of DOPS to the departmental assessment plan. Significant improvement was observed in DOPS scores of PG trainees. Mean DOPS scores of postgraduate trainee year 1, 2, and 3 (JR 1, JR 2, and JR 3) increased from 2.6 to 4.8, 4 to 5.7, and 5.6 to 7, respectively (P < 0.05). Conclusions: DOPS may be considered as a useful tool for workplace-based assessment for anesthesia PG training.
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
麻醉科引入程序技能直接观察作为工作场所评估工具:对学生和教师认知的评估
背景:程序技能的直接观察(DOPS)被引入到基于工作场所的程序技能评估中。它提供了一个向学员提供反馈的机会。这使得DOPS成为衡量麻醉学训练中临床能力的真实指标。本研究的目的是评估受训人员和顾问对DOPS使用的看法,并评估麻醉研究生(PG)受训人员在连续评估中的表现。材料和方法:在获得伦理委员会和致敏研讨会的批准后,根据受训人员的培训年限,为他们提供三种常见麻醉技能,每个受训人员两次DOPS暴露。此后,从教员和受训人员那里收集了匿名反馈,以收集他们对DOPS的看法。对学员的连续DOPS得分进行分析。数据以百分比、平均值和标准差表示。P值<0.05被认为是显著的。结果:超过50%的参与者对DOPS的实施方式感到满意,并认为这对于形成性评估是可行的。约80%的参与者认为DOPS有助于麻醉训练和提高麻醉程序技能。然而,只有40%至50%的人赞成在部门评估计划中增加DOPS。PG受训人员的DOPS得分有显著提高。研究生1、2和3年级(JR 1、JR 2和JR 3)的DOPS平均得分分别从2.6分提高到4.8分、4分提高到5.7分和5.6分提高到7分(P<0.05)。
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
Bali Journal of Anesthesiology
Bali Journal of Anesthesiology Nursing-Emergency Nursing
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
Selective Critically ill patients with tracheostomy are eligible for direct from intensive care unit sent home: Case series Comment on: Effects of different anesthetic techniques on neutrophil lymphocyte ratio and monocyte lymphocyte ratio in patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery: A prospective, single-blind, randomized study Low procalcitonin clearance correlates with mortality treated with culture-matched antibiotics in intensive care unit: A retrospective, observational study Phenylephrine, ondansetron, or combination of both for prevention of intraoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing lower segment cesarean section: A prospective, double-blind randomized control trial Artificial intelligence in anesthesia and critical care (part 1): Current perspective in critical care setting
×
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