[Undergraduate student's perception of clinical simulation workshops: assessment of an instrument]. / Percepción de estudiantes de pregrado de Medicina de talleres de simulación de procedimientos médico-quirúrgicos.

BACKGROUND: Simulation is a useful training tool for undergraduate medical students. A valid instrument is needed to assess students' perception of simulation workshops. AIM: To adapt and validate an instrument to assess the undergraduate medical student's perception of simulation workshops of clinical procedures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Delphi Methodology was used to adapt the instrument. Exploratory and confirmatory analyses were performed to determine the construct validity and Cronbach's Alpha (0 to 1) for internal consistency of the instrument. RESULTS: A Delphi panel of 10 experts adapted a seven-item questionnaire (Likert scale 1-5; ranging from 7 to 35) and four open-questions. After 3-delphi-rounds, the instrument was administered to 210 students in six simulation training programs (Paracentesis, Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation, Airway management, Sutures, Thoracentesis and Nursing Procedures). The instrument was considered unidimensional in the factorial analysis. The overall median (Q1-Q3) score was 34 ranging from 32 to 35 and the Cronbach Alpha coefficient was 0.72, indicating a good reliability. CONCLUSIONS: The perception questionnaire is a useful and reliable instrument to assess students' perceptions of clinical simulations.

Percepción de estudiantes de pregrado de Medicina de talleres de simulación de procedimientos médico-quirúrgicos / Undergraduate student's perception of clinical simulation workshops: assessment of an instrument

Background: Simulation is a useful training tool for undergraduate medical students. A valid instrument is needed to assess students' perception of simulation workshops. Aim: To adapt and validate an instrument to assess the undergraduate medical student's perception of simulation workshops of clinical procedures. Material and Methods: Delphi Methodology was used to adapt the instrument. Exploratory and confirmatory analyses were performed to determine the construct validity and Cronbach's Alpha (0 to 1) for internal consistency of the instrument. Results: A Delphi panel of 10 experts adapted a seven-item questionnaire (Likert scale 1-5; ranging from 7 to 35) and four open-questions. After 3-delphi-rounds, the instrument was administered to 210 students in six simulation training programs (Paracentesis, Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation, Airway management, Sutures, Thoracentesis and Nursing Procedures). The instrument was considered unidimensional in the factorial analysis. The overall median (Q1-Q3) score was 34 ranging from 32 to 35 and the Cronbach Alpha coefficient was 0.72, indicating a good reliability. Conclusions: The perception questionnaire is a useful and reliable instrument to assess students' perceptions of clinical simulations.

Validation of the imperial college surgical assessment device for spinal anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, technical proficiency for spinal anesthesia has been assessed using observational scales such as global rating scales or task specific checklists. However more objective metrics are required in order to improve novice's training programs. The aim of this study is to validate the hand motion analysis of the Imperial College Surgical Assessment Device (ICSAD) in a simulated model of spinal anesthesia. METHODS: Three groups of physicians with different levels of experience were video recorded performing a spinal anesthesia in a simulated lumbar puncture torso. Participants' technical performance was assessed with ICSAD, a Global Rating Scale (GRS) and a specific Checklist. Differences between the 3 groups were determined by Kruskal-Wallis test with post hoc Dunn's correction for multiple comparisons. Spearman correlation coefficient between ICSAD variables and the scores of the observational scales were calculated to establish concurrent validity. RESULTS: Thirty subjects participated in the study: ten novice (first year residents), 10 intermediate (third year residents) and 10 experts (attending anesthesiologists). GRS scores were significantly higher in experts, than intermediates and novices. Regarding total path length, number of movements and procedural time measured with ICSAD, all groups had significant differences between them (p = 0.026, p = 0.045 and p = 0.005 respectively). Spearman correlation coefficient was -0,46 (p = 0.012) between total path length measured with ICSAD and GRS scores. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first validation study of ICSAD as an assessment tool for spinal anesthesia in a simulated model. Using ICSAD can discriminate proficiency between expert and novices and correlates with previously validated GRS. Its use in the assessment of spinal anesthesia proficiency provides complementary data to existing tools. Our results could be used to design future training programs with reliable goals to accomplish.

Assessment of central venous catheterization in a simulated model using a motion-tracking device: an experimental validation study.

BACKGROUND: Central venous catheterization (CVC) is a basic requirement for many medical specialties. Simulated training in CVC may allow the acquisition of this competency but few reports have established a valid methodology for learning and acquiring procedural skills for CVC. This study aims to validate the use of a tracking motion device, the imperial college surgical assessment device (ICSAD), by comparing it with validated global rating scales (GRS) to measure CVC performance in a simulated torso. METHODS: Senior year medical students, first and last year residents (PGY1, LYR), and expert anesthesiologists performed a jugular CVC assessment in a simulated model (Laerdal IV Torso). A validated GRS for objective assessment of technical skills and motion analysis by ICSAD was used. Statistical analysis was performed through Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests for construct validity and Spearman correlation coefficients between the ICSAD and GRS scores for concurrent validity between both. RESULTS: 32 subjects were recruited (10 medical students, 8 PGY1, 8 LYR and 8 experts). Total path length measured with ICSAD and GRS scores were significantly different between all groups, except for LYR compared to experts (p = 0.664 for GRS and p = 0.72 for ICSAD). Regarding jugular CVC procedural time, LYR and experts were faster than PGY1 and MS (p < 0.05). Spearman correlation coefficient was -0.684 (p < 0.001) between ICSAD and GRS scores. CONCLUSIONS: ICSAD is a valid tool for assessment of jugular CVC since it differentiates between expert and novice subjects, and correlates with a validated GRS for jugular CVC in a simulated torso.

A cadaveric porcine model for assessment in laparoscopic bariatric surgery--a validation study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGBP) is the most effective surgical therapy for morbid obesity. It is an advanced laparoscopic surgical procedure and has a protracted learning curve. Therefore, it is important to develop innovative ways of training and assessing surgeons. The aim of this study is to determine if a cadaveric porcine jejuno-jejunostomy model is an accurate way of assessing a surgeon's technical skills by determining if a correlation exists with how he performs in the operating room. METHODS: Eight surgeons of varying experience performed a side-to-side stapled jejuno-jejunostomy on a cadaveric bench model before proceeding to perform the procedure on a real patient scheduled for LRYGBP. Performance was assessed using a motion tracking device, the Imperial College Surgical Assessment Device. Each procedure was recorded in video and scored by two blinded expert surgeons using procedure-specific rating scales. RESULTS: The cadaveric bench model demonstrated concurrent validity with significant correlations between performance on the cadaveric model and patient for dexterity measures. Left-hand path length, r = 0.857 (median, 27, 41.3; P = 0.007), right-hand path length, r = 0.810 (median, 31.5, 60; P = 0.015) and total number of movements, r = 0.743 (median, 422, 637; P = 0.035). This correlation in performance was also demonstrated in the video rating scales, r = 0.727 (median, 13.2, 14.8; P = 0.041). No correlation was found in operative time (median, 541, 742; P = 0.071). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the concurrent validity of the cadaveric porcine model, showing similar performances in surgeons completing a jejuno-jejunostomy on the cadaveric model and the patient.