Dataset Information

Isolating steps instead of learners: Use of deliberate practice and validity evidence in coronavirus disease (COVID)-era procedural assessment.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In surgical training, assessment tools based on strong validity evidence allow for standardized evaluation despite changing external circumstances. At a large academic institution, surgical interns undergo a multimodal curriculum for central line placement that uses a 31-item binary assessment at the start of each academic year. This study evaluated this practice within increased in-person learning restrictions. We hypothesized that external constraints would not affect resident performance nor assessment due to a robust curriculum and assessment checklist.

Methods

From 2018 to 2020, 81 residents completed central line training and assessment. In 2020, this curriculum was modified to conform to in-person restrictions and social distancing guidelines. Resident score reports were analyzed using multivariate analyses to compare performance, objective scoring parameters, and subjective assessments among "precoronavirus disease" years (2018 and 2019) and 2020.

Results

There were no significant differences in average scores or objective pass rates over 3 years. Significant differences between 2020 and precoronavirus disease years occurred in subjective pass rates and in first-time success for 4 checklist items: patient positioning, draping, sterile ultrasound probe cover placement, and needle positioning before venipuncture.

Conclusion

Modifications to procedural training within current restrictions did not adversely affect residents' overall performance. However, our data suggest that in 2020, expert trainers may not have ensured learner acquisition of automated procedural steps. Additionally, although 2020 raters could have been influenced by logistical barriers leading to more lenient grading, the assessment tool ensured training and assessment integrity.

SUBMITTER: Schmiederer IS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8276111 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn December 2020, Public Health England with NHS Test and Trace initiated a pilot study in which close contacts of people with confirmed COVID-19 were given the option to carryout lateral flow device antigen tests at home, as an alternative to self-isolation for 10-14 days. In this study, we evaluated engagement with daily testing, and assessed levels of adherence to the rules relating to behaviour following positive or negative test results.MethodsWe conducted a service evaluation of the pilot study, examining survey responses from a subset of those who responded to an evaluation questionnaire. We used an online cross-sectional survey offered to adult contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases who consented to daily testing. We used a comparison group of contacts who were not offered testing and instead self-isolated.ResultsAcceptability of daily testing was lower among survey respondents who were not offered the option of testing and among people from ethnic minority groups. Overall, 52% of respondents reported being more likely to share details of people that they had been in contact with following a positive test result, if they knew that their contacts would be offered the option of daily testing. Only 2% reported that they would be less likely to provide details of their contacts. On the days that they were trying to self-isolate, 19% of participants reported that they left the house, with no significant group differences. Following a negative test, 13% of respondents reported that they increased their contacts, but most (58%) reported having fewer risky contacts.ConclusionsOur data suggest that daily testing is potentially acceptable, may facilitate sharing contact details of close contacts among those who test positive for COVID-19, and promote adherence to self-isolation. A better understanding is needed of how to make this option more acceptable for all households. The impact of receiving a negative test on behaviour remains a risk that needs to be monitored and mitigated by appropriate messaging. Future research should examine attitudes and behaviour in a context where infection levels are lower, testing is more familiar, and restrictions on activity have been reduced.