Laufer Shlomi, D'Angelo Anne-Lise D, Kwan Calvin, Ray Rebbeca D, Yudkowsky Rachel, Boulet John R, McGaghie William C, Pugh Carla M
*Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI †Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI ‡Department of Medical Education, University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine, Chicago, IL §Foundation for Advancement of International Medical Education and Research, Philadelphia, PA ¶Department of Medical Education, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL.
Ann Surg. 2017 Dec;266(6):1069-1074. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002024.
Develop new performance evaluation standards for the clinical breast examination (CBE).
There are several, technical aspects of a proper CBE. Our recent work discovered a significant, linear relationship between palpation force and CBE accuracy. This article investigates the relationship between other technical aspects of the CBE and accuracy.
This performance assessment study involved data collection from physicians (n = 553) attending 3 different clinical meetings between 2013 and 2014: American Society of Breast Surgeons, American Academy of Family Physicians, and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Four, previously validated, sensor-enabled breast models were used for clinical skills assessment. Models A and B had solitary, superficial, 2 cm and 1 cm soft masses, respectively. Models C and D had solitary, deep, 2 cm hard and moderately firm masses, respectively. Finger movements (search technique) from 1137 CBE video recordings were independently classified by 2 observers. Final classifications were compared with CBE accuracy.
Accuracy rates were model A = 99.6%, model B = 89.7%, model C = 75%, and model D = 60%. Final classification categories for search technique included rubbing movement, vertical movement, piano fingers, and other. Interrater reliability was (k = 0.79). Rubbing movement was 4 times more likely to yield an accurate assessment (odds ratio 3.81, P < 0.001) compared with vertical movement and piano fingers. Piano fingers had the highest failure rate (36.5%). Regression analysis of search pattern, search technique, palpation force, examination time, and 6 demographic variables, revealed that search technique independently and significantly affected CBE accuracy (P < 0.001).
Our results support measurement and classification of CBE techniques and provide the foundation for a new paradigm in teaching and assessing hands-on clinical skills. The newly described piano fingers palpation technique was noted to have unusually high failure rates. Medical educators should be aware of the potential differences in effectiveness for various CBE techniques.
制定临床乳腺检查(CBE)的新性能评估标准。
正确的CBE有几个技术方面。我们最近的研究发现触诊力度与CBE准确性之间存在显著的线性关系。本文研究了CBE其他技术方面与准确性之间的关系。
这项性能评估研究涉及从2013年至2014年参加3次不同临床会议的医生(n = 553)收集数据:美国乳腺外科医师协会、美国家庭医师学会和美国妇产科医师学会。使用4个先前经过验证的、带有传感器的乳腺模型进行临床技能评估。模型A和B分别有一个2厘米和1厘米的孤立浅表软肿块。模型C和D分别有一个2厘米的孤立深部硬肿块和中度硬肿块。2名观察者对1137份CBE视频记录中的手指动作(检查技术)进行独立分类。将最终分类与CBE准确性进行比较。
准确率分别为模型A = 99.6%,模型B = 89.7%,模型C = 75%,模型D = 60%。检查技术的最终分类类别包括摩擦动作、垂直动作、钢琴指法和其他。观察者间信度为(k = 0.79)。与垂直动作和钢琴指法相比,摩擦动作得出准确评估的可能性高4倍(优势比3.81,P < 0.001)。钢琴指法的失败率最高(36.5%)。对检查模式、检查技术、触诊力度、检查时间和6个人口统计学变量的回归分析显示,检查技术独立且显著影响CBE准确性(P < 0.001)。
我们的结果支持对CBE技术进行测量和分类,并为实践临床技能教学和评估的新范式奠定基础。新描述的钢琴指法触诊技术的失败率异常高。医学教育工作者应意识到各种CBE技术在有效性方面的潜在差异。