Schwid Howard A, Rooke G Alec, Carline Jan, Steadman Randolph H, Murray W Bosseau, Olympio Michael, Tarver Stephen, Steckner Karen, Wetstone Susan
Department of Anesthesiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Anesthesiology. 2002 Dec;97(6):1434-44. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200212000-00015.
Anesthesia simulators can generate reproducible, standardized clinical scenarios for instruction and evaluation purposes. Valid and reliable simulated scenarios and grading systems must be developed to use simulation for evaluation of anesthesia residents.
After obtaining Human Subjects approval at each of the 10 participating institutions, 99 anesthesia residents consented to be videotaped during their management of four simulated scenarios on MedSim or METI mannequin-based anesthesia simulators. Using two different grading forms, two evaluators at each department independently reviewed the videotapes of the subjects from their institution to score the residents' performance. A third evaluator, at an outside institution, reviewed the videotape again. Statistical analysis was performed for construct- and criterion-related validity, internal consistency, interrater reliability, and intersimulator reliability. A single evaluator reviewed all videotapes a fourth time to determine the frequency of certain management errors.
Even advanced anesthesia residents nearing completion of their training made numerous management errors; however, construct-related validity of mannequin-based simulator assessment was supported by an overall improvement in simulator scores from CB and CA-1 to CA-2 and CA-3 levels of training. Subjects rated the simulator scenarios as realistic (3.47 out of possible 4), further supporting construct-related validity. Criterion-related validity was supported by moderate correlation of simulator scores with departmental faculty evaluations (0.37-0.41, P < 0.01), ABA written in-training scores (0.44-0.49, < 0.01), and departmental mock oral board scores (0.44-0.47, P < 0.01). Reliability of the simulator assessment was demonstrated by very good internal consistency (alpha = 0.71-0.76) and excellent interrater reliability (correlation = 0.94-0.96; P < 0.01; kappa = 0.81-0.90). There was no significant difference in METI versus MedSim scores for residents in the same year of training.
Numerous management errors were identified in this study of anesthesia residents from 10 institutions. Further attention to these problems may benefit residency training since advanced residents continued to make these errors. Evaluation of anesthesia residents using mannequin-based simulators shows promise, adding a new dimension to current assessment methods. Further improvements are necessary in the simulation scenarios and grading criteria before mannequin-based simulation is used for accreditation purposes.
麻醉模拟器可为教学和评估生成可重复、标准化的临床场景。必须开发有效且可靠的模拟场景和评分系统,以便利用模拟来评估麻醉住院医师。
在10个参与机构均获得人体受试者批准后,99名麻醉住院医师同意在使用MedSim或基于METI人体模型的麻醉模拟器管理4个模拟场景的过程中被录像。每个科室的两名评估人员使用两种不同的评分表,独立审查来自其所在机构的受试者的录像,以对住院医师的表现进行评分。另一家机构的第三名评估人员再次审查录像。对结构效度、效标效度、内部一致性、评估者间信度和模拟器间信度进行了统计分析。一名评估人员第四次审查所有录像,以确定某些管理失误的频率。
即使是即将完成培训的高级麻醉住院医师也犯了许多管理失误;然而,基于人体模型的模拟器评估的结构效度得到了支持,即从CB和CA - 1到CA - 2和CA - 3培训水平,模拟器分数总体上有所提高。受试者将模拟器场景评为逼真(满分4分,平均3.47分),进一步支持了结构效度。效标效度得到了支持,因为模拟器分数与科室教员评估(0.37 - 0.41,P < 0.01)、ABA在职笔试分数(0.44 - 0.49,P < 0.01)以及科室模拟口试分数(0.44 - 0.47,P < 0.01)之间存在中度相关性。模拟器评估的信度通过非常好的内部一致性(α = 0.71 - 0.76)和出色的评估者间信度(相关性 = 0.94 - 0.96;P < 0.01;kappa = 0.81 - 0.90)得以证明。同一年培训的住院医师在METI和MedSim分数上没有显著差异。
在这项对来自10个机构的麻醉住院医师的研究中发现了许多管理失误。由于高级住院医师仍在犯这些错误,进一步关注这些问题可能会使住院医师培训受益。使用基于人体模型的模拟器对麻醉住院医师进行评估显示出前景,为当前评估方法增添了新的维度。在基于人体模型的模拟用于认证目的之前,模拟场景和评分标准还需要进一步改进。