Leander De Mol, Amber Lievens, Najade De Pauw, Hanne Vanommeslaeghe, Isabelle Van Herzeele, Patrick Van de Voorde, Lars Konge, Liesbeth Desender, Wouter Willaert
{"title":"使用猪肋骨模型评估胸腔插管技巧——一项有效性研究。","authors":"Leander De Mol, Amber Lievens, Najade De Pauw, Hanne Vanommeslaeghe, Isabelle Van Herzeele, Patrick Van de Voorde, Lars Konge, Liesbeth Desender, Wouter Willaert","doi":"10.1097/SIH.0000000000000750","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Assessments require sufficient validity evidence before their use. The Assessment for Competence in Chest Tube Insertion (ACTION) tool evaluates proficiency in chest tube insertion (CTI), combining a rating scale and an error checklist. The aim of this study was to collect validity evidence for the ACTION tool on a porcine rib model according to the Messick framework.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A rib model, consisting of a porcine hemithorax that was placed in a wooden frame, was used as simulator. Participants were recruited from the departments of surgery, pulmonology, and emergency medicine. After familiarization with the rib model and the equipment, standardized instructions and clinical context were provided. They performed 2 CTIs while being scored with the ACTION tool. All performances were assessed live by 1 rater and by 3 blinded raters using video recordings. Generalizability-analysis was performed and mean scores and errors of both groups on the first performance were compared. A pass/fail score was established using the contrasting groups' method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine novice and 8 experienced participants completed the study. Generalizability coefficients where high for the rating scale (0.92) and the error checklist (0.87). In the first CTI, novices scored lower than the experienced group (38.1/68 vs. 47.1/68, P = 0.042), but no difference was observed on the error checklist. A pass/fail score of 44/68 was established.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A solid validity argument for the ACTION tool's rating scale on a porcine rib model is presented, allowing formative and summative assessment of procedural skills during training before patient contact.</p>","PeriodicalId":49517,"journal":{"name":"Simulation in Healthcare-Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare","volume":" ","pages":"287-293"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing Chest Tube Insertion Skills Using a Porcine Rib Model-A Validity Study.\",\"authors\":\"Leander De Mol, Amber Lievens, Najade De Pauw, Hanne Vanommeslaeghe, Isabelle Van Herzeele, Patrick Van de Voorde, Lars Konge, Liesbeth Desender, Wouter Willaert\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/SIH.0000000000000750\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Assessments require sufficient validity evidence before their use. The Assessment for Competence in Chest Tube Insertion (ACTION) tool evaluates proficiency in chest tube insertion (CTI), combining a rating scale and an error checklist. The aim of this study was to collect validity evidence for the ACTION tool on a porcine rib model according to the Messick framework.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A rib model, consisting of a porcine hemithorax that was placed in a wooden frame, was used as simulator. Participants were recruited from the departments of surgery, pulmonology, and emergency medicine. After familiarization with the rib model and the equipment, standardized instructions and clinical context were provided. They performed 2 CTIs while being scored with the ACTION tool. All performances were assessed live by 1 rater and by 3 blinded raters using video recordings. Generalizability-analysis was performed and mean scores and errors of both groups on the first performance were compared. A pass/fail score was established using the contrasting groups' method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine novice and 8 experienced participants completed the study. Generalizability coefficients where high for the rating scale (0.92) and the error checklist (0.87). In the first CTI, novices scored lower than the experienced group (38.1/68 vs. 47.1/68, P = 0.042), but no difference was observed on the error checklist. A pass/fail score of 44/68 was established.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A solid validity argument for the ACTION tool's rating scale on a porcine rib model is presented, allowing formative and summative assessment of procedural skills during training before patient contact.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49517,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Simulation in Healthcare-Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"287-293\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Simulation in Healthcare-Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000750\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/26 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Simulation in Healthcare-Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000750","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Assessing Chest Tube Insertion Skills Using a Porcine Rib Model-A Validity Study.
Introduction: Assessments require sufficient validity evidence before their use. The Assessment for Competence in Chest Tube Insertion (ACTION) tool evaluates proficiency in chest tube insertion (CTI), combining a rating scale and an error checklist. The aim of this study was to collect validity evidence for the ACTION tool on a porcine rib model according to the Messick framework.
Methods: A rib model, consisting of a porcine hemithorax that was placed in a wooden frame, was used as simulator. Participants were recruited from the departments of surgery, pulmonology, and emergency medicine. After familiarization with the rib model and the equipment, standardized instructions and clinical context were provided. They performed 2 CTIs while being scored with the ACTION tool. All performances were assessed live by 1 rater and by 3 blinded raters using video recordings. Generalizability-analysis was performed and mean scores and errors of both groups on the first performance were compared. A pass/fail score was established using the contrasting groups' method.
Results: Nine novice and 8 experienced participants completed the study. Generalizability coefficients where high for the rating scale (0.92) and the error checklist (0.87). In the first CTI, novices scored lower than the experienced group (38.1/68 vs. 47.1/68, P = 0.042), but no difference was observed on the error checklist. A pass/fail score of 44/68 was established.
Conclusion: A solid validity argument for the ACTION tool's rating scale on a porcine rib model is presented, allowing formative and summative assessment of procedural skills during training before patient contact.
期刊介绍:
Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare is a multidisciplinary publication encompassing all areas of applications and research in healthcare simulation technology. The journal is relevant to a broad range of clinical and biomedical specialties, and publishes original basic, clinical, and translational research on these topics and more: Safety and quality-oriented training programs; Development of educational and competency assessment standards; Reports of experience in the use of simulation technology; Virtual reality; Epidemiologic modeling; Molecular, pharmacologic, and disease modeling.