Assessment of laparoscopic skills: comparing the reliability of global rating and entrustability tools.

Background: Competence by design (CBD) residency programs increasingly depend on tools that provide reliable assessments, require minimal rater training, and measure progression through the CBD milestones. To assess intraoperative skills, global rating scales and entrustability ratings are commonly used but may require extensive training. The Competency Continuum (CC) is a CBD framework that may be used as an assessment tool to assess laparoscopic skills. The study aimed to compare the CC to two other assessment tools: the Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (GOALS) and the Zwisch scale. Methods: Four expert surgeons rated thirty laparoscopic cholecystectomy videos. Two raters used the GOALS scale while the remaining two raters used both the Zwisch scale and CC. Each rater received scale-specific training. Descriptive statistics, inter-rater reliabilities (IRR), and Pearson's correlations were calculated for each scale. Results: Significant positive correlations between GOALS and Zwisch (r = 0.75, p < 0.001), CC and GOALS (r = 0.79, p < 0.001), and CC and Zwisch (r = 0.90, p < 0.001) were found. The CC had an inter-rater reliability of 0.74 whereas the GOALS and Zwisch scales had inter-rater reliabilities of 0.44 and 0.43, respectively. Compared to GOALS and Zwisch scales, the CC had the highest inter-rater reliability and required minimal rater training to achieve reliable scores. Conclusion: The CC may be a reliable tool to assess intraoperative laparoscopic skills and provide trainees with formative feedback relevant to the CBD milestones. Further research should collect further validity evidence for the use of the CC as an independent assessment tool.

Contexte: Les programmes de résidence structurés autour de la compétence par conception (CPC) dépendent de plus en plus d'outils qui fournissent des évaluations fiables, nécessitent une formation minimale des évaluateurs et mesurent la progression dans les étapes de la CPC. Pour évaluer les compétences peropératoires, les échelles d'évaluation globale et de confiance sont couramment utilisées mais peuvent nécessiter une formation approfondie. Le Continuum des compétences (CC) est un cadre de la CPC qui peut être utilisé comme outil d'évaluation des compétences laparoscopiques. L'étude visait à comparer le CC à deux autres outils d'évaluation : l'évaluation globale opératoire des compétences laparoscopiques (GOALS) et l'échelle de Zwisch. Méthodes: Quatre chirurgiens experts ont évalué trente vidéos de cholécystectomie laparoscopique. Deux évaluateurs ont utilisé l'échelle GOALS tandis que les deux autres ont utilisé l'échelle Zwisch et le CC. Chacun d'eux avait reçu une formation spécifique à l'échelle utilisée. Des statistiques descriptives, la fiabilité inter-évaluateurs (FIÉ) et des corrélations de Pearson ont été calculées pour chaque échelle. Résultats: Des corrélations positives significatives ont été trouvées entre les échelles GOALS et Zwisch (r=0.75, p<0.001), CC et GOALS (r=0.79, p<0.001), et CC et Zwisch (r=0.90, p<0.001). Le CC avait une fiabilité inter-évaluateurs de 0,74 tandis que les échelles GOALS et Zwisch avaient des fiabilités inter-évaluateurs de 0,44 et 0,43, respectivement. Par rapport aux échelles GOALS et Zwisch, le CC avait la fiabilité inter-évaluateurs la plus élevée et ne nécessitait qu'une formation minimale des évaluateurs pour obtenir des scores fiables. Conclusion: Le CC constituerait un outil fiable pour évaluer les compétences laparoscopiques peropératoires et pour fournir aux stagiaires une rétroaction formatrice pertinente pour les étapes de la CPC. Des recherches supplémentaires devraient être entreprises pour recueillir plus de preuves de validité pour l'utilisation du CC comme outil d'évaluation indépendant.

The Inter-Rater Reliability of Technical Skills Assessment and Retention of Rater Training.

BACKGROUND: The inter-rater reliability (IRR) of laparoscopic skills assessment is usually determined in the context of motivated raters from a single subspecialty practice group with significant experience using similar tools. The purpose of this study was to determine the IRR among attending surgeons of different experience and practices, the extent of rater training that is necessary to achieve good IRR, and if rater training is retained over periods of nonuse. METHODS: In Part 1, 5 surgeons of different practice backgrounds assessed 3 laparoscopic cholecystectomy videos using the Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills instrument. In Part 2, 2 of the surgeons assessed a total of 33 videos over 5 scoring sessions distributed across 6 months. They participated in 2 different training sessions, and retention was tested in the other 3 sessions. IRR was calculated for Parts 1 and 2 with an intraclass correlation (ICC) in a 2-way random-effects model. RESULTS: The ICC for Part 1 was poor (ICC = 0.26). In Part 2, the ICC was highest after each training session (scoring #1 ICC = 0.76, scoring #3 ICC = 0.74). The ICC was not retained 1.5 months after the brief video-based training session (scoring #2 ICC = -0.17). The ICC was retained 2.5 months after the in-depth discussion training session (scoring #4 ICC = 0.70), but not 4.5 months later (scoring #5 ICC = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Good IRR is not implicit among surgeons with varying backgrounds and experience. Good IRR can be achieved with different types of rater training, but the impact of rater training is lost in periods of nonuse. This suggests the need for further study of the IRR of technical skills assessment when performed by the wide variety of surgeon raters as is commonly encountered in the environment of postgraduate resident assessment.

Resource Utilization After Snakebite Severity Score Implementation into Treatment Algorithm of Crotaline Bite.

BACKGROUND: Crotaline envenomation clinical manifestations vary considerably among patients. Current recommendations for treatment with Crotalidae polyvalent immune Fab require assessment of envenomation control. Determining control of envenomation, particularly when patients are evaluated by different providers in separate clinical settings, can be difficult. OBJECTIVE: To determine if a difference in total vials of Crotalidae antivenin therapy exists between pre-protocol and post-Snakebite Severity Score (SSS) protocol. METHODS: Retrospective medical record review at an academic medical and regional Level I trauma center. Resource utilization in patients with a diagnosis of "snakebite" was compared between patients treated pre- and post-SSS protocol implementation. RESULTS: One hundred forty-six patients were included in the evaluation. One hundred twenty-seven (87.0%) patients received antivenin, n = 80 (90.9%) in the pre-protocol group and n = 47 (81.0%) in the post-protocol group. Median total number of antivenin vials per patient was lower in the post-protocol group than the pre-protocol group, 16 (10-24 interquartile range) vs. 12 (10-16 interquartile range), p = 0.006. This decreased utilization correlates to an approximate $13,200 savings per patient. Hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, opioid use, incidence of blood product transfusion, need for surgical intervention, or need for intubation were not different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: A snakebite protocol with SSS utilization to guide antivenin administration results in significantly decreased antivenin therapy in snakebite patients without increase in other health care utilization.