4.7 Article

A human factors analysis of technical and team skills among surgical trainees during procedural simulations in a simulated operating theatre

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGERY
卷 242, 期 5, 页码 631-639

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000186298.79308.a8

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: High-risk organizations such as aviation rely on simulations for the training and assessment of technical and team performance. The aim of this study was to develop a simulated environment for surgical trainees using similar principles. Methods: A total of 27 surgical trainees carried out a simulated procedure in a Simulated Operating Theatre with a standardized OR team. Observation of OR events was carried out by an unobtrusive data collection system: clinical data recorder. Assessment of performance consisted of blinded rating of technical skills, a checklist of technical events, an assessment of communication, and a global rating of team skills by a human factors expert and trained surgical research fellows. The participants underwent a debriefing session, and the face validity of the simulated environment was evaluated. Results: While technical skills rating discriminated between surgeons according to experience (P = 0.002), there were no differences in terms of the checklist and team skills (P = 0.70). While all trainees were observed to gown/glove and handle sharps correctly, low scores were observed for some key features of communication with other team members. Low scores were obtained by the entire cohort for vigilance. Interobserver reliability was 0.90 and 0.89 for technical and team skills ratings. Conclusions: The simulated operating theatre could serve as an environment for the development of surgical competence among surgical trainees. Objective, structured, and multimodal assessment of performance during simulated procedures could serve as a basis for focused feedback during training of technical and team skills.

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