RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Tools for endovascular performance assessment are necessary in competency based education. This study aimed to develop and test a detailed analysis tool to assess steps, errors, and events in peripheral endovascular interventions (PVI). METHODS: A modified Delphi consensus was used to identify steps, errors, and events in iliac-femoral-popliteal endovascular interventions. International experts in vascular surgery, interventional radiology, cardiology, and angiology were identified, based on their scientific track record. In an initial open ended survey round, experts volunteered a comprehensive list of steps, errors, and events. The items were then rated on a five point Likert scale until consensus was reached with a pre-defined threshold (Cronbach's alpha > 0.7) and > 70% expert agreement. An experienced endovascular surgeon applied the finalised frameworks on 10 previously videorecorded elective PVI cases. RESULTS: The expert consensus panel was formed by 28 of 98 invited proceduralists, consisting of three angiologists, seven interventional radiologists, five cardiologists, and 13 vascular surgeons, with 29% from North America and 71% from Europe. The Delphi process was completed after three rounds (Cronbach's alpha; αsteps = 0.79; αerrors = 0.90; αevents = 0.90), with 15, 26, and 18 items included in the final step (73 - 100% agreement), error (73 - 100% agreement), and event (73 - 100% agreement) frameworks, respectively. The median rating time per case was 4.3 hours (interquartile range [IQR] 3.2, 5 hours). A median of 55 steps (IQR 40, 67), 27 errors (IQR 21, 49), and two events (IQR 1, 6) were identified per case. CONCLUSION: An evaluation tool for the procedural steps, errors, and events in iliac-femoral-popliteal endovascular procedures was developed through a modified Delphi consensus and applied to recorded intra-operative data to identify hazardous steps, common errors, and events. Procedural mastery may be promoted by using the frameworks to provide endovascular proceduralists with detailed technical performance feedback.