The performance improvement-score algorithm applied to endoscopic stone. Treatment step 1 protocol.

D. Veneziano, G. Patruno, M. Talso, T. Tokas, S. Proietti, A. Porreca, G. Kamphuis, S. Biyani, E. Emiliani, M. Cepeda Delgado, Lopez Maria De Mar Perez, R. Miano, S. Ferretti, N. Macchione, P. Kallidonis, E. Montanari, G. Tripepi, A. Ploumidis, G. Cacciamani, Estevão Lima, B. Somani
{"title":"The performance improvement-score algorithm applied to endoscopic stone. Treatment step 1 protocol.","authors":"D. Veneziano, G. Patruno, M. Talso, T. Tokas, S. Proietti, A. Porreca, G. Kamphuis, S. Biyani, E. Emiliani, M. Cepeda Delgado, Lopez Maria De Mar Perez, R. Miano, S. Ferretti, N. Macchione, P. Kallidonis, E. Montanari, G. Tripepi, A. Ploumidis, G. Cacciamani, Estevão Lima, B. Somani","doi":"10.23736/S0393-2249.20.03747-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nPi-score (Performance Improvement score) has been proven to be reliable to measure performance improvement during E-BLUS hands-on training sessions. Our study is aimed to adapt and test the score to EST s1 (Endoscopic Stone Treatment step 1) protocol, in consideration of its worldwide adoption for practical training.\n\n\nMETHODS\nThe Pi-score algorithm considers time measurement and number of errors from two different repetitions (first and fifth) of the same training task and compares them to the relative task goals, to produce an objective score. Data were obtained from the first edition of 'ART in Flexible Course', during 4 courses in Barcelona and Milan. Collected data were independently analysed by the experts for Pi assessment. Their scores were compared for inter-rater reliability. The average scores from all tutors were then compared to the PI-score provided by our algorithm for each participant, in order to verify their statistical correlation. Kappa Statistics was used for comparison analysis.\n\n\nRESULTS\n16 Hands-on Training expert tutors and 47 3rd year residents in Urology were involved. Concordance found between the 16 proctors' scores was the following: Task1=0.30 (\"fair\"); Task2=0.18 (\"slight\"); Task3=0.10 (\"slight\"); Task4=0.20, (\"slight\"). Concordance between Pi-score results and proctor average scores per-participant was the following: Task1=0.74 (\"substantial\"); Task2=0.71 (\"substantial\"); Task3=0.46 (\"moderate\"); Task4=0.49 (\"moderate\").\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nOur exploratory study demonstrates that Pi-score can be effectively adapted to EST s1. Our algorithm successfully provided an objective score that equals the average performance improvement scores assigned by of a cohort of experts, in relation to a small amount of training attempts.","PeriodicalId":49015,"journal":{"name":"Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.20.03747-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

BACKGROUND Pi-score (Performance Improvement score) has been proven to be reliable to measure performance improvement during E-BLUS hands-on training sessions. Our study is aimed to adapt and test the score to EST s1 (Endoscopic Stone Treatment step 1) protocol, in consideration of its worldwide adoption for practical training. METHODS The Pi-score algorithm considers time measurement and number of errors from two different repetitions (first and fifth) of the same training task and compares them to the relative task goals, to produce an objective score. Data were obtained from the first edition of 'ART in Flexible Course', during 4 courses in Barcelona and Milan. Collected data were independently analysed by the experts for Pi assessment. Their scores were compared for inter-rater reliability. The average scores from all tutors were then compared to the PI-score provided by our algorithm for each participant, in order to verify their statistical correlation. Kappa Statistics was used for comparison analysis. RESULTS 16 Hands-on Training expert tutors and 47 3rd year residents in Urology were involved. Concordance found between the 16 proctors' scores was the following: Task1=0.30 ("fair"); Task2=0.18 ("slight"); Task3=0.10 ("slight"); Task4=0.20, ("slight"). Concordance between Pi-score results and proctor average scores per-participant was the following: Task1=0.74 ("substantial"); Task2=0.71 ("substantial"); Task3=0.46 ("moderate"); Task4=0.49 ("moderate"). CONCLUSIONS Our exploratory study demonstrates that Pi-score can be effectively adapted to EST s1. Our algorithm successfully provided an objective score that equals the average performance improvement scores assigned by of a cohort of experts, in relation to a small amount of training attempts.
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
应用于内镜结石的性能改进评分算法。治疗步骤1方案。
pi分数(绩效改进分数)已被证明是衡量E-BLUS实践培训课程中绩效改进的可靠指标。我们的研究旨在适应并测试EST s1(内镜结石治疗步骤1)方案的分数,考虑到其在全球范围内的实际培训采用。方法Pi-score算法考虑同一训练任务的两次不同重复(第一次和第五次)的测量时间和误差数量,并将其与相对任务目标进行比较,得出客观得分。数据来自第一版“灵活课程中的ART”,在巴塞罗那和米兰的4个课程中。收集的数据由专家独立分析进行Pi评估。他们的分数被用来比较评分者之间的信度。然后将所有导师的平均分数与我们的算法为每个参与者提供的pi分数进行比较,以验证它们的统计相关性。采用Kappa统计学进行比较分析。结果共涉及16名实践培训专家导师和47名泌尿外科三年级住院医师。16名监考人员的分数之间的一致性如下:Task1=0.30(“公平”);Task2 = 0.18(“轻微”);Task3 = 0.10(“轻微”);Task4 = 0.20,(“轻微”)。Pi-score结果与每个参与者的proctor平均分之间的一致性如下:Task1=0.74(“实质性”);Task2 = 0.71(“实质性”);Task3 = 0.46(“温和”);Task4 = 0.49(“温和”)。结论探索性研究表明,pi评分可以有效地适应EST s1。我们的算法成功地提供了一个客观的分数,该分数等于一组专家分配的相对于少量训练尝试的平均性能改进分数。
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
Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica
Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica publishes scientific papers on nephrology and urology. Manuscripts may be submitted in the form of Minerva opinion editorials, editorial comments, original articles, video illustrated articles, review articles and letters to the Editor.
期刊最新文献
Real-life data on long-term follow-up of patients successfully treated with percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS). Identifying tumor-related risk factors for simultaneous adrenalectomy in patients with cT1 - cT2 kidney cancer during robotic assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. A systematic review of nerve-sparing surgery for high-risk prostate cancer. Comparison of outcomes between laparoscopic and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for complex renal tumors (RENAL score ≥ 7 or maximum tumor size > 4cm): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Totally intracorporeal robotic ileal ureter replacement: focus on surgical technique and outcomes.
×
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