Validity and reliability of global operative assessment of laparoscopic skills (GOALS) in novice trainees performing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

PURPOSE: Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (GOALS) assessment has been designed to evaluate skills in laparoscopic surgery. A longitudinal blinded study of randomized video fragments was conducted to estimate the validity and reliability of GOALS in novice trainees. METHODS: In total, 10 trainees each performed 6 consecutive laparoscopic cholecystectomies. Sixty procedures were recorded on video. Video fragments of (1) opening of the peritoneum; (2) dissection of Calot's triangle and achievement of critical view of safety; and (3) dissection of the gallbladder from the liver bed were blinded, randomized, and rated by 2 consultant surgeons using GOALS. Also, a grade was given for overall competence. The correlation of GOALS with live observation Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) scores was calculated. Construct validity was estimated using the Friedman 2-way analysis of variance by ranks and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The interrater reliability was calculated using the absolute and consistency agreement 2-way random-effects model intraclass correlation coefficient. RESULTS: A high correlation was found between mean GOALS score (r = 0.879, p = 0.021) and mean OSATS score. The GOALS score increased significantly across the 6 procedures (p = 0.002). The trainees performed significantly better on their sixth when compared with their first cholecystectomy (p = 0.004). The consistency agreement interrater reliability was 0.37 for the mean GOALS score (p = 0.002) and 0.55 for overall competence (p < 0.001) of the 3 video fragments. CONCLUSION: The validity observed in this randomized blinded longitudinal study supports the existing evidence that GOALS is a valid tool for assessment of novice trainees. A relatively low reliability was found in this study.

Costs of relaparotomy on-demand versus planned relaparotomy in patients with severe peritonitis: an economic evaluation within a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Results of the first randomized trial comparing on-demand versus planned-relaparotomy strategy in patients with severe peritonitis (RELAP trial) indicated no clear differences in primary outcomes. We now report the full economic evaluation for this trial, including detailed methods, nonmedical costs, further differentiated cost calculations, and robustness of different assumptions in sensitivity analyses. METHODS: An economic evaluation was conducted from a societal perspective alongside a randomized controlled trial in 229 patients with severe secondary peritonitis and an acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE)-II score >or=11 from two academic and five regional teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. After the index laparotomy, patients were randomly allocated to an on-demand or a planned-relaparotomy strategy. Primary resource-utilization data were used to estimate mean total costs per patient during the index admission and after discharge until 1 year after the index operation. Overall differences in costs between the on-demand relaparotomy strategy and the planned strategy, as well as relative differences across several clinical subgroups, were evaluated. RESULTS: Costs were substantially lower in the on-demand group (mean, 65,768 euro versus 83,450 euro per patient in the planned group; mean absolute difference, 17,682 euro; 95% CI, 5,062 euro to e29,004 euro). Relative differences in mean total costs per patient (approximately 21%) were robust to various alternative assumptions. Planned relaparotomy consistently generated more costs across the whole range of different courses of disease (quick recovery and few resources used on one end of the spectrum; slow recovery and many resources used on the other end). This difference in costs between the two surgical strategies also did not vary significantly across several clinical subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: The reduction in societal costs renders the on-demand strategy a more-efficient relaparotomy strategy in patients with severe peritonitis. These differences were found across the full range of healthcare resources as well as across patients with different courses of disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN51729393.

Comparison of on-demand vs planned relaparotomy strategy in patients with severe peritonitis: a randomized trial.

CONTEXT: In patients with severe secondary peritonitis, there are 2 surgical treatment strategies following an initial emergency laparotomy: planned relaparotomy and relaparotomy only when the patient's condition demands it ("on-demand"). The on-demand strategy may reduce mortality, morbidity, health care utilization, and costs. However, randomized trials have not been performed. OBJECTIVE: To compare patient outcome, health care utilization, and costs of on-demand and planned relaparotomy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Randomized, nonblinded clinical trial at 2 academic and 5 regional teaching hospitals in the Netherlands from November 2001 through February 2005. Patients had severe secondary peritonitis and an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE-II) score of 11 or greater. INTERVENTION: Random allocation to on-demand or planned relaparotomy strategy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was death and/or peritonitis-related morbidity within a 12-month follow-up period. Secondary end points included health care utilization and costs. RESULTS: A total of 232 patients (116 on-demand and 116 planned) were randomized. One patient in the on-demand group was excluded due to an operative diagnosis of pancreatitis and 3 in each group withdrew or were lost to follow-up. There was no significant difference in primary end point (57% on-demand [n = 64] vs 65% planned [n = 73]; P = .25) or in mortality alone (29% on-demand [n = 32] vs 36% planned [n = 41]; P = .22) or morbidity alone (40% on-demand [n = 32] vs 44% planned [n = 32]; P = .58). A total of 42% of the on-demand patients had a relaparotomy vs 94% of the planned relaparotomy group. A total of 31% of first relaparotomies were negative in the on-demand group vs 66% in the planned group (P <.001). Patients in the on-demand group had shorter median intensive care unit stays (7 vs 11 days; P = .001) and shorter median hospital stays (27 vs 35 days; P = .008). Direct medical costs per patient were reduced by 23% using the on-demand strategy. CONCLUSION: Patients in the on-demand relaparotomy group did not have a significantly lower rate of death or major peritonitis-related morbidity compared with the planned relaparotomy group but did have a substantial reduction in relaparotomies, health care utilization, and medical costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN51729393.