Journal of bronchology & interventional pulmonology · 2018
Assessment of Bronchoscopic Dexterity and Procedural Competency in a Low-fidelity Simulation Model.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Steinfort Daniel P, Yong Yi Heng, Byrne Timothy, Gorelik Alexandra, Colt Henri, Irving Louis B
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Assessment of competency in bronchoscopy has traditionally been undertaken in clinical settings, however, recent recognition of increased procedural complications and learner anxiety have led to interest in simulation-based competency assessment. The aim of this study was to determine if low-fidelity simulation-based assessment allows discrimination of competency based on prior experience between bronchoscopists.
METHODS: Forty-four participants were allocated to 3 groups based on prior bronchoscopic experience [novices (n=31) with no prior experience, intermediates (n=7) with prior experience of 5 to 10 bronchoscopies, and expert bronchoscopists (n=6) with minimum 200 prior bronchoscopies performed]. Participants performed bronchoscopy in a 3D-printed anatomic airway model and were assessed according to time required to navigate to a target bronchus. Bronchoscopic dexterity was measured using a modified version of the validated Bronchoscopy Skills and Tasks Assessment Tool.
RESULTS: Competency based on successful navigation to a target bronchus differed significantly between each group [experts, 12/12 (100%); intermediates, 9/14 (64%); novices, 19/62 (31%); P<0.001]. Bronchoscopic dexterity as measured by modified Bronchoscopy Skills and Tasks Assessment Tool also differed significantly between groups with experts achieving consistently higher scores compared with other 2 groups [median (interquartile range) scores: novices, 3.5 (2.5 to 5); intermediate, 5 (4.5 to 7); experts, 8 (7.5 to 8); P<0.0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Multiple measures demonstrate that low-fidelity simulation-based assessment may reliably discriminate between different levels of skill in performing bronchoscopic navigation and airway inspection. Procedural dexterity of trainees may be assessed in a 0-risk simulation environment.
METHODS: Forty-four participants were allocated to 3 groups based on prior bronchoscopic experience [novices (n=31) with no prior experience, intermediates (n=7) with prior experience of 5 to 10 bronchoscopies, and expert bronchoscopists (n=6) with minimum 200 prior bronchoscopies performed]. Participants performed bronchoscopy in a 3D-printed anatomic airway model and were assessed according to time required to navigate to a target bronchus. Bronchoscopic dexterity was measured using a modified version of the validated Bronchoscopy Skills and Tasks Assessment Tool.
RESULTS: Competency based on successful navigation to a target bronchus differed significantly between each group [experts, 12/12 (100%); intermediates, 9/14 (64%); novices, 19/62 (31%); P<0.001]. Bronchoscopic dexterity as measured by modified Bronchoscopy Skills and Tasks Assessment Tool also differed significantly between groups with experts achieving consistently higher scores compared with other 2 groups [median (interquartile range) scores: novices, 3.5 (2.5 to 5); intermediate, 5 (4.5 to 7); experts, 8 (7.5 to 8); P<0.0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Multiple measures demonstrate that low-fidelity simulation-based assessment may reliably discriminate between different levels of skill in performing bronchoscopic navigation and airway inspection. Procedural dexterity of trainees may be assessed in a 0-risk simulation environment.