Thinggaard Ebbe, Bjerrum Flemming, Strandbygaard Jeanett, Gögenur Ismail, Konge Lars
Department of Surgery, Roskilde and Koege Hospital, Koege, Denmark; Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Department of Surgery, Roskilde and Koege Hospital, Koege, Denmark.
J Surg Educ. 2016 Nov-Dec;73(6):986-991. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2016.05.008. Epub 2016 Jun 17.
Simulation-based assessment tools have been developed to allow for proficiency-based simulator training in laparoscopy. However, few studies have examined the consequences of different standard setting methods or examined what level of proficiency is considered adequate for trainees. The objectives of the present study were to explore the consequences of different standard setting methods and to examine the proficiency level that surgical trainees are expected to reach, before performing supervised surgery on patients.
Study participants undertook the Training and Assessment of Basic Laparoscopic Techniques test. The tests were video-recorded and rated using a simple scoring system based on number of errors and time. Participants were then asked to assess how high a score a novice should reach before performing supervised surgery on a patient. We then compared 3 methods of standard setting: expert performance level, contrasting groups method, and a modified Angoff method.
The study was conducted at the Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation. The academy provides surgical simulation training in laparoscopy for trainees at the hospitals in the Capital Region and the Zealand Region of Denmark.
Participants were recruited among surgical trainees in their first year of specialty training from surgery, gynecology, and urology departments. A total of 40 participants were included and completed the trial.
The different standard setting methods resulted in different pass/fail levels. At the expert performance level, the pass/fail level was 474 points-the contrasting groups method resulted in 358 points and the modified Angoff method resulted in 311 points among experienced surgeons, and 386 points among trainees. The different proficiency levels resulted in a failure rate of 0% to 50% of experienced surgeons and a pass rate of 0% to 25% of novices. Novice laparoscopic surgeons set a higher pass/fail level than experienced surgeons did (p = 0.008).
Required proficiency levels varies depending on the standard setting method used, which highlights the importance of using an established standard setting method to set the pass/fail level.
基于模拟的评估工具已被开发出来,以实现腹腔镜手术基于熟练程度的模拟器培训。然而,很少有研究探讨不同标准设定方法的后果,或研究何种熟练程度水平被认为对受训者是足够的。本研究的目的是探讨不同标准设定方法的后果,并检查外科受训者在对患者进行监督手术之前预期应达到的熟练程度水平。
研究参与者进行了基本腹腔镜技术培训与评估测试。测试进行了视频录制,并使用基于错误数量和时间的简单评分系统进行评分。然后要求参与者评估新手在对患者进行监督手术之前应达到多高的分数。然后我们比较了3种标准设定方法:专家表现水平、对比组方法和改良的安格夫方法。
该研究在哥本哈根医学教育与模拟学院进行。该学院为丹麦首都地区和西兰地区医院的受训者提供腹腔镜手术模拟培训。
参与者从外科、妇科和泌尿科专科培训第一年的外科受训者中招募。共纳入40名参与者并完成了试验。
不同的标准设定方法导致了不同的及格/不及格水平。在专家表现水平上,及格/不及格水平为474分——对比组方法得出358分,改良的安格夫方法在有经验的外科医生中得出311分,在受训者中得出386分。不同的熟练程度水平导致有经验的外科医生的不及格率为0%至50%,新手的及格率为0%至25%。新手腹腔镜外科医生设定的及格/不及格水平高于有经验的外科医生(p = 0.008)。
所需的熟练程度水平因所使用的标准设定方法而异,这突出了使用既定的标准设定方法来设定及格/不及格水平的重要性。