RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Simulators may improve the efficiency, safety, and quality of endoscopic training. However, no objective, reliable, and valid tool exists to assess clinical endoscopic skills. Such a tool to measure the outcomes of educational strategies is a necessity. This multicenter, multidisciplinary trial aimed to develop instruments for evaluating basic flexible endoscopic skills and to demonstrate their reliability and validity. METHODS: The Global Assessment of Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Skills (GAGES) Upper Endoscopy (GAGES-UE) and Colonoscopy (GAGES-C) are rating scales developed by expert endoscopists. The GAGES scale was completed by the attending endoscopist (A) and an observer (O) in self-assessment (S) during procedures to establish interrater reliability (IRR, using the intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]) and internal consistency (IC, using Cronbach's alpha). Instrumentation was evaluated when possible and correlated with total scores. Construct and external validity were examined by comparing novice (NOV) and experienced (EXP) endoscopists (Student's t-test). Correlations were calculated for GAGES-UE and GAGES-C with participants who had performed both. RESULTS: For the 139 completed evaluations (60 NOV, 79 EXP), IRR (A vs. O) was 0.96 for GAGES-UE and 0.97 for GAGES-C. The IRR between S and A was 0.78 for GAGES-UE and 0.89 for GAGES-C. The IC was 0.89 for GAGES-UE, and 0.95 for GAGES-C. There were mean differences between the NOV and the EXP endoscopists for GAGE-UE (14.4 +/- 3.7 vs. 18.5 +/- 1.6; p < 0.001) and GAGE-C (11.8 +/- 3.8 vs. 18.8 +/- 1.3; p < 0.001). Good correlation was found between the scores for the GAGE-UE and the GAGE-C (r = 0.75; n = 37). Instrumentation, when performed, demonstrated correlations with total scores of 0.84 (GAGE-UE; n = 73) and 0.86 (GAGE-C; n = 45). CONCLUSIONS: The GAGES-UE and GAGES-C are easy to administer and consistent and meet high standards of reliability and validity. They can be used to measure the effectiveness of simulator training and to provide specific feedback. The GAGES results can be generalized to North American and European endoscopists and may contribute to the definition of technical proficiency in endoscopy.
Assuntos
Competência Clínica , Endoscopia Gastrointestinal/normas , HumanosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Although laparoscopic appendectomy is widely used for treatment of appendicitis, it is still unclear if it is superior to the open approach. STUDY DESIGN: From the Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2000 to 2005, hospitalizations with the primary ICD-9 procedure code of laparoscopic (LA) and open appendectomy (OA) were included in this study. Outcomes of length of stay, costs, and complications were assessed by stratified analysis for uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis (perforation or abscess). Regression methods were used to adjust for covariates and to detect trends. Costs were rescaled using the hospital and related services portion of the Medical Consumer Price Index. RESULTS: Between 2000 and 2005, 132,663 (56.3%) patients underwent OA and 102,810 (43.7%) had LA. Frequency of LA increased from 32.2% to 58.0% (p < 0.001); conversion rates decreased from 9.9% to 6.9% (p < 0.001). Covariate adjusted length of stay for LA was approximately 15% shorter than for OA in both uncomplicated and complicated cases (p < 0.001). Adjusted costs for LA were 22% higher in uncomplicated appendicitis and 9% higher in patients with complicated appendicitis (p < 0.001). Costs and length of stay decreased over time in OA and LA. The risk for a complication was higher in the LA group (p < 0.05, odds ratio=1.07, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.14) with uncomplicated appendicitis. CONCLUSIONS: LA results in higher costs and increased morbidity for patients with uncomplicated appendicitis. Nevertheless, LA is increasingly used. Patients undergoing LA benefit from a slightly shorter hospital stay. In general, open appendectomy may be the preferred approach for patients with acute appendicitis, with indication for LA in selected subgroups of patients.