Dataset Information

A randomized comparison of video demonstration versus hands-on training of medical students for vacuum delivery using Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS).

ABSTRACT:

Background

To compare medical students' skills for vaginal operative delivery by vacuum extraction (VE) after hands-on training versus video demonstration.

Methods

We randomized medical students to an expert demonstration (group 1) or a hands-on (group 2) training using a standardized VE algorithm on a pelvic training model. Students were tested with a 40-item Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) scoring system after training and 4 days later. OSATS scores were the primary outcome. Performance time, self-assessment, confidence, and global rating scale were secondary outcomes. We assessed the constructive validity of OSATS in this VE model comparing metric scores of experts and students.

Results

In all, 137 students were randomized. OSATS scores were higher in group 2 (n = 63) compared with group 1 (n = 74) (32.89 ± 6.39 vs 27.51 ± 10.27, respectively; P < 0.0001). Global rating scale (1.49 ± 0.76 vs 2.33 ± 0.94, respectively; P < 0.0001), confidence (2.22 ± 0.75 vs 3.26 ± 0.94, respectively; P = 0.04), self-assessment (2.03 ± 0.62 vs 2.51 ± 0.77, respectively; P < 0.0001), and performance time (38.81 ± 11.58 seconds vs 47.23 ± 17.35 seconds, respectively; P = 0.001) also favored group 2. After 4 days, this effect persisted with OSATS scores still being significantly higher in group 2 (30.00 ± 6.50 vs 25.59 ± 6.09, respectively; P = 0.001). The assessed OSATS scores showed constructive validity. In a multiple linear regression analysis, group assignment independently influenced OSATS scores, whereas sex, handedness, sports activities, and type of curriculum were not independently associated with OSATS scores.

Conclusions

Hands-on training is superior to video demonstration for teaching VE on a pelvic model.

SUBMITTER: Hilal Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5369926 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A randomized comparison of video demonstration versus hands-on training of medical students for vacuum delivery using Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS).

Hilal Ziad Z Kumpernatz Anne K AK Rezniczek Günther A GA Cetin Cem C Tempfer-Bentz Eva-Katrin EK Tempfer Clemens B CB

Medicine 20170301 11

<h4>Background</h4>To compare medical students' skills for vaginal operative delivery by vacuum extraction (VE) after hands-on training versus video demonstration.<h4>Methods</h4>We randomized medical students to an expert demonstration (group 1) or a hands-on (group 2) training using a standardized VE algorithm on a pelvic training model. Students were tested with a 40-item Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) scoring system after training and 4 days later. OSATS scores w ...[more]

PMID: 28296771

Similar Datasets

Project description:Performance assessment in skills training is ideally based on objective, reliable, and clinically relevant indicators of success. The Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill (OSATS) is a reliable and valid tool that has been increasingly used in orthopaedic skills training. It uses a global rating approach to structure expert evaluation of technical skills with the experts working from a list of operative competencies that are each rated on a 5-point Likert scale anchored by behavioral descriptors. Given the observational nature of its scoring, the OSATS might not effectively assess the quality of surgical results.(1) Does OSATS scoring in an intraarticular fracture reduction training exercise correlate with the quality of the reduction? (2) Does OSATS scoring in a cadaveric extraarticular fracture fixation exercise correlate with the mechanical integrity of the fixation?Orthopaedic residents at the University of Iowa (six postgraduate year [PGY]-1s) and at the University of Minnesota (seven PGY-1s and eight PGY-2s) undertook a skills training exercise that involved reducing a simulated intraarticular fracture under fluoroscopic guidance. Iowa residents participated three times during 1 month, and Minnesota residents participated twice with 1 month between their two sessions. A fellowship-trained orthopaedic traumatologist rated each performance using a modified OSATS scoring scheme. The quality of the articular reduction obtained was then directly measured. Regression analysis was performed between OSATS scores and two metrics of articular reduction quality: articular surface deviation and estimated contact stress. Another skills training exercise involved fixing a simulated distal radius fracture in a cadaveric specimen. Thirty residents, distributed across four PGY classes (PGY-2 and PGY-3, n = 8 each; PGY-4 and PGY-5, n = 7 each), simultaneously completed the exercise at individual stations. One of three faculty hand surgeons independently scored each performance using a validated OSATS scoring system. The mechanical integrity of each fixation construct was then assessed in a materials testing machine. Regression analysis was performed between OSATS scores and two metrics of fixation integrity: stiffness and failure load.In the intraarticular fracture model, OSATS scores did not correlate with articular reduction quality (maximum surface deviations: R = 0.17, p = 0.25; maximum contact stress: R = 0.22, p = 0.13). Similarly in the cadaveric extraarticular fracture model, OSATS scores did not correlate with the integrity of the mechanical fixation (stiffness: R = 0.10, p = 0.60; failure load: R = 0.30, p = 0.10).OSATS scoring methods do not effectively assess the quality of the surgical result. Efforts must be made to incorporate assessment metrics that reflect the quality of the surgical result.New objective, reliable, and clinically relevant measures of the quality of the surgical result obtained by a trainee are urgently needed. For intraarticular fracture reduction and extraarticular fracture fixation, direct physical measurement of reduction quality and of mechanical integrity of fixation, respectively, meet this need.

Project description:ObjectiveAssessment of the quality of the final product (QFP) is critical in simulation training, such as the clock face suture (CFS) exercise that is used to assess trainees' needle handling and suturing accuracy. Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill (OSATS) scores are the gold standard for the evaluation of trainees. The aim was to investigate variability in the use of OSATS checklists and to evaluate a semi-automatic method of suture analysis vs. OSATS scores.MethodsDetails of 287 CFSs performed by trainees during Fundamentals in Vascular Surgery examinations were collected. All were rated according to a seven item OSATS checklist, including QFP score and an overall score by one or two expert surgeons immediately after completion. Interassessor variability was assessed for the CFS that were assessed by two assessors.In order to assess intra- and interassessor variability, 50 CFS pictures were chosen randomly and submitted to three expert surgeons to rate the QFP twice and to carry out a semi-automatic image analysis of each CFS and the estimated cumulative error (CE; mm) recorded. It was hypothesised that the CE correlates to OSATS checklist items or overall score. Variables were compared for correlation with OSATS results using a linear regression. A Pearson's test was used to confirm the proposed hypothesis.ResultsMean ± standard deviation overall score for the OSATS checklist was 20.61 ± 6.33. Inter- and intra-assessor correlation were statistically significant regarding OSATS checklist items. Both correlations presented a low coefficient of determination, indicating variability. The mean CE was 16.07 ± 4.84 mm, and the correlation between the QFP and CE was statistically significant, proving that CE is an objective metric by which to assess the QFP.ConclusionOSATS score demonstrated intra- and interassessor variability, although there was a significant correlation between scores. CE is an objective metric that is not subject to assessor subjectivity or interassessor variability and is correlated with the gold standard of evaluation.

Project description:IntroductionThe aim of this study was to develop a reliable objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS) score for linear-stapled, hand-sewn closure of enterotomy intestinal anastomoses (A-OSATS).Materials and methodsThe Delphi methodology was used to create a traditional and weighted A-OSATS score highlighting the more important steps for patient outcomes according to an international expert consensus. Minimally invasive novices, intermediates, and experts were asked to perform a minimally invasive linear-stapled intestinal anastomosis with hand-sewn closure of the enterotomy in a live animal model either laparoscopically or robot-assisted. Video recordings were scored by two blinded raters assessing intrarater and interrater reliability and discriminative abilities between novices (n = 8), intermediates (n = 24), and experts (n = 8).ResultsThe Delphi process included 18 international experts and was successfully completed after 4 rounds. A total of 4 relevant main steps as well as 15 substeps were identified and a definition of each substep was provided. A maximum of 75 points could be reached in the unweighted A-OSATS score and 170 points in the weighted A-OSATS score respectively. A total of 41 anastomoses were evaluated. Excellent intrarater (r = 0.807-0.988, p < 0.001) and interrater (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.923-0.924, p < 0.001) reliability was demonstrated. Both versions of the A-OSATS correlated well with the general OSATS and discriminated between novices, intermediates, and experts defined by their OSATS global rating scale.ConclusionWith the weighted and unweighted A-OSATS score, we propose a new reliable standard to assess the creation of minimally invasive linear-stapled, hand-sewn anastomoses based on an international expert consensus. Validity evidence in live animal models is provided in this study. Future research should focus on assessing whether the weighted A-OSATS exceeds the predictive capabilities of patient outcomes of the unweighted A-OSATS and provide further validity evidence on using the score on different anastomotic techniques in humans.

Project description:PurposeRecently, some attempts have been made to integrate lung ultrasound (LUS) teaching into medical curricula. However, current education studies of LUS are extremely heterogeneous due to the lack of evidence-based guidelines on LUS education. In particular, the assessment of competencies is poorly standardized and mostly relies on non-validated scales. A new validated tool, the objective structured assessment of lung ultrasound skills (LUS-OSAUS), has the potential to overcome these limitations. Therefore, we adopted the LUS-OSAUS tool to assess the competencies of a group of LUS-trained undergraduates. Existing no prior practical applications of the LUS-OSAUS, our aim was to investigate the practical utility of this tool and its applicability in the evaluation of US-trained medical students.MethodsEight undergraduates (two males, six females) were enrolled on a voluntary basis to receive a theoretical and practical training in LUS. Once completed their training, each student performed an LUS examination on a different patient hospitalized for respiratory symptoms. The same eight patients were also scanned by a senior resident in emergency medicine for a comparison with students' results. Students and the senior resident were tested by an examiner using the LUS-OSAUS tool. We compared the scores obtained by operators in all areas of competence of the LUS-OSAUS, the total scores, and the time needed to complete the sonographic task.ResultsMedian students' score in the single items of the scale was significantly lower than the ones obtained by the senior resident (4.0 [3.3-5.0] vs. 5.0 [5.0-5.0]; p < 0.0001). Students scored significantly lower than the senior resident in each item, except for B-line identification, choice of the correct transducer, and suggested focused questions. Median total score was also lower for students compared to the senior resident (70.5 [61.0-74.8] vs. 84.0 [83.5-84.3] (p = 0.0116). Median time required to complete the examination was significantly higher for students (14.1 [12.8-16.1] vs. 4.7 [3.9-5.2] min, p = 0.0117).ConclusionsThe LUS-OSAUS tool allowed for a standardized and comprehensive assessment of student's competencies in lung ultrasound, and helped to discriminate their level of expertise from that of a more experienced operator. The scale also specifically tests the theoretical knowledge of trainees, thus making redundant the use of questionnaires designed for this purpose.

Project description:BackgroundTeaching and assessment of communication skills have become essential in medical education. The Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) has been found as an appropriate means to assess communication skills within medical education. Studies have demonstrated the importance of a valid assessment of medical students' communication skills. Yet, the validity of the performance scores depends fundamentally on the quality of the rating scales used in an OSCE. Thus, this systematic review aimed at providing an overview of existing rating scales, describing their underlying definition of communication skills, determining the methodological quality of psychometric studies and the quality of psychometric properties of the identified rating scales.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review to identify psychometrically tested rating scales, which have been applied in OSCE settings to assess communication skills of medical students. Our search strategy comprised three databases (EMBASE, PsycINFO, and PubMed), reference tracking and consultation of experts. We included studies that reported psychometric properties of communication skills assessment rating scales used in OSCEs by examiners only. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the COnsensus based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. The quality of psychometric properties was evaluated using the quality criteria of Terwee and colleagues.ResultsData of twelve studies reporting on eight rating scales on communication skills assessment in OSCEs were included. Five of eight rating scales were explicitly developed based on a specific definition of communication skills. The methodological quality of studies was mainly poor. The psychometric quality of the eight rating scales was mainly intermediate.DiscussionOur results reveal that future psychometric evaluation studies focusing on improving the methodological quality are needed in order to yield psychometrically sound results of the OSCEs assessing communication skills. This is especially important given that most OSCE rating scales are used for summative assessment, and thus have an impact on medical students' academic success.

Dataset Information

A randomized comparison of video demonstration versus hands-on training of medical students for vacuum delivery using Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS).

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A randomized comparison of video demonstration versus hands-on training of medical students for vacuum delivery using Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets