Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 1st St SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Chest. 2010 May;137(5):1050-6. doi: 10.1378/chest.09-1451. Epub 2010 Jan 8.
Central venous catheterization (CVC) is associated with patient risks known to be inversely related to clinician experience. We developed and evaluated a performance assessment tool for use in a simulation-based central line workshop. We hypothesized that instrument scores would discriminate between less experienced and more experienced clinicians.
Participants included trainees enrolled in an institutionally mandated CVC workshop and a convenience sample of faculty attending physicians. The workshop integrated several experiential learning techniques, including practice on cadavers and part-task trainers. A group of clinical and education experts developed a 15-point CVC Proficiency Scale using national and institutional guidelines. After the workshop, participants completed a certification exercise in which they independently performed a CVC in a part-task trainer. Two authors reviewed videotapes of the certification exercise to rate performance using the CVC Proficiency Scale. Participants were grouped by self-reported CVC experience.
One hundred and five participants (92 trainees and 13 attending physicians) participated. Interrater reliability on a subset of 40 videos was 0.71, and Cronbach a was 0.81. The CVC Proficiency Scale Composite score varied significantly by experience: mean of 85%, median of 87% (range 47%-100%) for low experience (0-1 CVCs in the last 2 years, n = 27); mean of 88%, median of 87% (range 60%-100%) for moderate experience (2-49 CVCs, n = 62); and mean of 94%, median of 93% (range 73%-100%) for high experience (> 49 CVCs, n = 16) (P = .02, comparing low and high experience).
Evidence from multiple sources, including appropriate content, high interrater and internal consistency reliability, and confirmation of hypothesized relations to other variables, supports the validity of using scores from this 15-item scale for assessing trainee proficiency following a central line workshop.
中心静脉置管术(CVC)与已知与临床医生经验呈负相关的患者风险有关。我们开发并评估了一种用于基于模拟的中心置管术工作坊的绩效评估工具。我们假设,该工具的评分将能够区分经验较少和经验较多的临床医生。
参与者包括参加机构规定的 CVC 工作坊的学员和参加的便利样本的主治医生。该工作坊整合了几种体验式学习技术,包括在尸体和部分任务培训器上进行练习。一组临床和教育专家使用国家和机构指南制定了一个 15 分的 CVC 熟练程度量表。工作坊结束后,参与者在部分任务培训器上独立进行 CVC 操作的认证练习。两位作者观看认证练习的录像带,并使用 CVC 熟练程度量表对表现进行评分。参与者根据自我报告的 CVC 经验进行分组。
共有 105 名参与者(92 名学员和 13 名主治医生)参加。对 40 个视频的一个子集的两位评分者之间的组内相关系数为 0.71,Cronbach a 为 0.81。CVC 熟练程度量表的综合评分因经验而异:经验较少(过去 2 年中进行了 0-1 次 CVC,n = 27)的平均得分为 85%,中位数为 87%(范围为 47%-100%);经验中等(进行了 2-49 次 CVC,n = 62)的平均得分为 88%,中位数为 87%(范围为 60%-100%);经验丰富(进行了 > 49 次 CVC,n = 16)的平均得分为 94%,中位数为 93%(范围为 73%-100%)(P =.02,比较低经验和高经验)。
来自多个来源的证据,包括适当的内容、高评分者间和内部一致性可靠性,以及对与其他变量的假设关系的确认,支持使用该 15 项量表的分数来评估中心置管术工作坊后的学员熟练程度。