使用猪肋骨模型评估胸腔插管技巧——一项有效性研究。

IF 1.7 3区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Simulation in Healthcare-Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-26 DOI:10.1097/SIH.0000000000000750
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":null,"pages":null},"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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

引言:评估在使用前需要足够的有效性证据。胸管插入能力评估(ACTION)工具结合评分量表和错误检查表评估胸管插入(CTI)的熟练程度。本研究的目的是根据Messick框架收集ACTION工具在猪肋骨模型上的有效性证据。方法:将猪半胸置于木框架中,建立肋骨模型作为模拟模型。参与者来自外科、肺科和急诊科。在熟悉肋骨模型和设备后,提供了标准化的说明和临床背景。他们进行了2次CTI,同时使用ACTION工具进行评分。所有表现均由1名评分员和3名盲法评分员使用录像进行现场评估。进行泛化分析,比较两组在第一次表现上的平均得分和误差。使用对照组的方法建立合格/不合格分数。结果:9名新手和8名经验丰富的参与者完成了研究。评分量表(0.92)和错误清单(0.87)的泛化系数较高。在第一次CTI中,新手的得分低于有经验的组(38.1/68对47.1/68,P=0.042),但在错误清单上没有观察到差异。通过/不通过分数为44/68。结论:ACTION工具在猪肋骨模型上的评分量表提供了一个可靠的有效性论据,允许对患者接触前训练过程中的程序技能进行形成性和总结性评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
8.30%
发文量
158
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
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.
期刊最新文献
Creation of a Novel Child Simulator and Curriculum to Optimize Administration of Seizure Rescue Medication. Increase in Newborns Ventilated Within the First Minute of Life and Reduced Mortality After Clinical Data-Guided Simulation Training. Systematic Review of Procedural Skill Simulation in Health Care in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Optimal Duration of High-Fidelity Simulator Training for Bronchoscope-Guided Intubation: A Noninferiority Randomized Trial. Theoretical, Conceptual, and Operational Aspects in Simulation Training With Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice: An Integrative Review.
×
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