Hock Sara M, Shah Shital C, Perumalsamy Priya D, Sergel Michelle
Department of Emergency Medicine, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, USA.
Department of Health Systems Management, College of Health Sciences, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, USA.
Cureus. 2021 May 10;13(5):e14943. doi: 10.7759/cureus.14943.
Background Emergency physicians must be proficient at inserting central venous catheters and performing lumbar punctures to provide life-saving therapies to critically ill patients. An assessment of procedural skill is rarely performed after an emergency physician has completed residency. Current board certification exams for emergency medicine focus only on verbal descriptions of procedures to assess skill. We compared two methods of procedural skill assessment, simulated task trainer and verbal description, to assess the range of skill in central venous catheter insertion and lumbar punctures of emergency attending physicians at a large, urban, academic tertiary care institution. Methodology This is a prospective cohort study of simulated internal jugular central venous catheter insertion and lumbar puncture skill by emergency attending physicians on a task trainer versus verbal description. A total of 17 attending emergency medicine physicians consented to participate in the study during a yearly procedural skills session. For each subject, two expert raters used previously published checklists to assess procedural skill and give a global rating score. Results More checklist items were performed correctly on the task trainer than on verbal assessment for central line (task trainer = 78.4% ± 8.32% and verbal = 68.26% ± 8.9%) and lumbar puncture (task trainer = 85.57% ± 7.6% and verbal = 73.53%4 ± 10.34%) procedures, both with significant differences (p < 0.001). Of the participants, 82% strongly preferred the task trainer format to the verbal description assessment format. Conclusions The higher scores on the simulated format compared to the current verbal format imply that a shift towards simulated procedural assessment techniques may benefit examinees. More work is needed to determine if objective checklist scores for practicing attending emergency physicians correlate with subjective expert assessments of their procedural skills.
背景
急诊医生必须熟练掌握中心静脉导管插入术和腰椎穿刺术,以便为重症患者提供挽救生命的治疗。急诊医生完成住院医师培训后,很少进行操作技能评估。目前的急诊医学委员会认证考试仅侧重于通过口头描述程序来评估技能。我们比较了两种操作技能评估方法,即模拟任务训练器和口头描述,以评估一家大型城市学术三级医疗机构中急诊主治医生在中心静脉导管插入术和腰椎穿刺术中的技能范围。
方法
这是一项前瞻性队列研究,比较急诊主治医生在任务训练器上模拟颈内静脉中心静脉导管插入术和腰椎穿刺技能与口头描述的情况。共有17名急诊医学主治医生在年度操作技能培训期间同意参与该研究。对于每个受试者,两名专家评分者使用先前发表的检查表来评估操作技能并给出总体评分。
结果
在中心静脉导管插入术(任务训练器 = 78.4% ± 8.32%,口头描述 = 68.26% ± 8.9%)和腰椎穿刺术(任务训练器 = 85.57% ± 7.6%,口头描述 = 73.53% ± 10.34%)中,任务训练器上正确执行的检查表项目比口头评估更多,两者均有显著差异(p < 0.001)。在参与者中,82%强烈倾向于任务训练器形式而非口头描述评估形式。
结论
与当前的口头形式相比,模拟形式的得分更高,这意味着向模拟操作评估技术的转变可能会使考生受益。需要更多工作来确定执业急诊主治医生的客观检查表分数是否与他们操作技能的主观专家评估相关。