Validity Evidence for Procedure-Specific Competency Assessment Tools in Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE

Surgical education has shifted from a time-based approach to the achievement and demonstration of procedural competency. High quality, objective assessment instruments are required to support this new approach. This study comprehensively reviewed the literature to identify and evaluate available procedure-specific assessment instruments in cardiothoracic and vascular surgery.

DESIGN

A systematic search of 8 databases identified studies containing procedure-specific operative assessment instruments in cardiothoracic and vascular surgery. Generic global rating scales were excluded, unless modified to be procedure-specific. Two reviewers independently evaluated the validity evidence, methodological rigour and educational utility of each instrument using objective scoring criteria. Validity evidence was evaluated with a scoring tool aligned with the contemporary framework of validity. Methodological rigour was evaluated using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument. Educational utility was evaluated according to the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) framework.

RESULTS

There were 2130 unique studies describing procedure-specific assessment in surgery. Of these, 9 studies evaluating 8 procedure-specific assessment instruments met inclusion criteria for cardiothoracic and vascular surgery. Four instruments were identified in thoracic surgery, 2 in cardiac surgery, and 2 in vascular surgery. Only 1 instrument was designed to evaluate surgeon performance, with the remainder designed to evaluate residents. No single instrument scored the maximum score of 15 for validity evidence. The highest score was 11, with 62.5% (n = 5) of instruments scoring greater than 10. All tools attained high scores in content validity, with minimal evidence generally presented regarding the consequences of assessment using a particular instrument. All but 1 instrument scored greater than 11 out of a maximum 16.5 points for methodological rigour. Very few studies reported on the ACGME domains of educational utility.

CONCLUSIONS

In an era where surgical education is shifting towards the demonstration of procedural competency, objective procedure-specific assessment is critical. This review identified that few procedure-specific assessment instruments in cardiothoracic and vascular surgery exist, emphasizing the need for such instruments to ensure the success of competency-based education models.