4.7 Article

Toward feasible, valid, and reliable video-based assessments of technical surgical skills in the operating room

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGERY
卷 247, 期 2, 页码 372-379

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318160b371

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To determine the feasibility, validity, inter-rater, and intertest reliability of 4 previously published video-based rating scales, for technical skills assessment on a benchmark laparoscopic procedure. Summary Background Data: Assessment of technical skills is crucial to the demonstration and maintenance of competent healthcare practitioners. Traditional assessment methods are prone to subjectivity through a lack of proven validity and reliability. Methods: Nineteen surgeons (6 novice and 13 experienced) performed a median of 2 laparoscopic cholecystectomies each (range 1-5) on 53 patients within 2 Academic Surgical Departments. All patients had a diagnosis of biliary colic. Surgical technical skills were rated posthoc in a blinded manner by 2 experienced observers on 4 video-based rating scales. The different scales used had been developed to assess generic or procedure-specific technical skills in a global manner, or on a procedure-specific checklist. Results: Six of 53 procedures were excluded on the basis of intraoperative difficulty. Of the remaining 47 procedures, 14 were performed by 6 novice surgeons and 33 by the 13 experienced surgeons. There were statistically significant differences between performance of the 2 groups on the generic global rating scale (median 24 vs. 27, P = 0.031), though not on procedural or checklist-based scales. All scales demonstrated inter-rater reliability (a = 0.58-0.76), though only the global rating scales exhibited intertest reliability (a = 0.72). Conclusions: Video-based technical skills evaluation in the operating room is feasible, valid and reliable. Global rating scales hold promise for summative assessment, though further work is necessary to elucidate the value of procedural rating scales.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据