From the Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences (A.A.), UCLA, Los Angeles, CA.
Department of Statistics (A.A.), UCLA, Los Angeles, CA.
Stroke. 2020 Mar;51(3):990-993. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.119.027234. Epub 2020 Jan 28.
Background and Purpose- The National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, designed and validated for use in clinical stroke trials, is now required for all patients with stroke at hospital admission. Recertification is required annually but no data support this frequency; the effect of mandatory training before recertification is unknown. Methods- To clarify optimal recertification frequency and training effect, we assessed users' mastery of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale over several years using correct scores (accuracy) on each scale item of the 15-point scale. We also constructed 9 technical errors that could result from misunderstanding the scoring rules. We measured accuracy and the frequency of these technical errors over time. Using multivariable regression, we assessed the effect of time, repeat testing, and profession on user mastery. Results- The final dataset included 1.3×10 examinations. Data were consistent among all 3 online vendors that provide training and certification. Test accuracy showed no significant changes over time. Technical error rates were remarkably low, ranging from 0.48 to 1.36 per 90 test items. Within 2 vendors (that do not require training), the technical error rates increased negligibly over time (<0.05). In data from a third vendor, mandatory training before recertification improved (reduced) technical errors but not accuracy. Conclusions- The data suggest that mastery of National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scoring rules is stable over time, and the recertification interval should be lengthened. Mandatory retraining may be needed after unsuccessful recertifications, but not routinely otherwise.
背景与目的- 国立卫生研究院卒中量表(National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale)专为临床卒中试验而设计和验证,现在要求所有卒中患者在入院时使用。每年都需要重新认证,但没有数据支持这种频率;重新认证前强制培训的效果尚不清楚。方法- 为了明确最佳的重新认证频率和培训效果,我们使用 15 分制量表的每个项目的正确得分(准确性)来评估用户在几年内对国立卫生研究院卒中量表的掌握程度。我们还构建了 9 种可能因误解评分规则而导致的技术错误。我们测量了准确性和这些技术错误的频率随时间的变化。使用多变量回归,我们评估了时间、重复测试和专业对用户掌握程度的影响。结果- 最终数据集包括 1.3×10 次检查。提供培训和认证的所有 3 个在线供应商的数据一致。测试准确性随时间没有显著变化。技术错误率非常低,范围在每 90 个测试项目 0.48 到 1.36 之间。在 2 个不要求培训的供应商(不要求培训)中,技术错误率随时间的推移几乎没有增加(<0.05)。在第三个供应商的数据中,重新认证前的强制培训可以改善(减少)技术错误,但不能提高准确性。结论- 数据表明,国立卫生研究院卒中量表评分规则的掌握程度随时间是稳定的,重新认证间隔应该延长。在重新认证不成功的情况下,可能需要强制重新培训,但通常不需要。