American journal of surgery · 2017
A Simulation-based, cognitive assessment of resident decision making during complex urinary catheterization scenarios.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Nathwani Jay N, Law Katherine E, Witt Anna K, Ray R D, DiMarco S M, Pugh C M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This study explores general surgery residents' decision making skills in uncommon, complex urinary catheter scenarios.
METHODS: 40 residents were presented with two scenarios. Scenario A was a male with traumatic urethral injury and scenario B was a male with complete urinary blockage. Residents verbalized whether they would catheterize the patient and described the workup and management of suspected pathologies. Residents' decision paths were documented and analyzed.
RESULTS: In scenario A, 45% of participants chose to immediately consult Urology. 47.5% named five diagnostic tests to decide if catheterization was safe. In scenario B, 27% chose to catheterize with a 16 French Coude. When faced with catheterization failure, participants randomly upsized or downsized catheters. Chi-square analysis revealed no measurable consensus amongst participants.
CONCLUSIONS: Residents need more training in complex decision making for urinary catheterization. The decision trees generated in this study provide a useful blueprint of residents' learning needs.
SUMMARY: Exploration of general surgery residents' decision making skills in uncommon, complex urinary catheter scenarios revealed major deficiencies. The resulting decision trees reveal residents' learning needs.
METHODS: 40 residents were presented with two scenarios. Scenario A was a male with traumatic urethral injury and scenario B was a male with complete urinary blockage. Residents verbalized whether they would catheterize the patient and described the workup and management of suspected pathologies. Residents' decision paths were documented and analyzed.
RESULTS: In scenario A, 45% of participants chose to immediately consult Urology. 47.5% named five diagnostic tests to decide if catheterization was safe. In scenario B, 27% chose to catheterize with a 16 French Coude. When faced with catheterization failure, participants randomly upsized or downsized catheters. Chi-square analysis revealed no measurable consensus amongst participants.
CONCLUSIONS: Residents need more training in complex decision making for urinary catheterization. The decision trees generated in this study provide a useful blueprint of residents' learning needs.
SUMMARY: Exploration of general surgery residents' decision making skills in uncommon, complex urinary catheter scenarios revealed major deficiencies. The resulting decision trees reveal residents' learning needs.