Objective metrics for hand-sewn bowel anastomoses can differentiate novice from expert surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Assessing performance automatically in a virtual reality trainer or from recorded videos is advantageous but needs validated objective metrics. The purpose of this study is to obtain expert consensus and validate task-specific metrics developed for assessing performance in double-layered end-to-end anastomosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects were recruited into expert (PGY 4-5, colorectal surgery residents, and attendings) and novice (PGY 1-3) groups. Weighted average scores of experts for each metric item, completion time, and the total scores computed using global and task-specific metrics were computed for assessment. RESULTS: A total of 43 expert surgeons rated our task-specific metric items with weighted averages ranging from 3.33 to 4.5 on a 5-point Likert scale. A total of 20 subjects (10 novices and 10 experts) participated in validation study. The novice group completed the task significantly more slowly than the experienced group (37.67 ± 7.09 vs 25.47 ± 7.82 min, p = 0.001). In addition, both the global rating scale (23.47 ± 4.28 vs 28.3 ± 3.85, p = 0.016) and the task-specific metrics showed a significant difference in performance between the two groups (38.77 ± 2.83 vs 42.58 ± 4.56 p = 0.027) following partial least-squares (PLS) regression. Furthermore, PLS regression showed that only two metric items (Stay suture tension and Tool handling) could reliably differentiate the performance between the groups (20.41 ± 2.42 vs 24.28 ± 4.09 vs, p = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that our task-specific metrics have significant discriminant validity and can be used to evaluate the technical skills for this procedure.

Development and Validation of Task-Specific Metrics for the Assessment of Linear Stapler-Based Small Bowel Anastomosis.

INTRODUCTION: Task-specific metrics facilitate the assessment of surgeon performance. This 3-phased study was designed to (1) develop task-specific metrics for stapled small bowel anastomosis, (2) obtain expert consensus on the appropriateness of the developed metrics, and (3) establish its discriminant validity. METHODS: In Phase I, a hierarchical task analysis was used to develop the metrics. In Phase II, a survey of expert colorectal surgeons established the importance of the developed metrics. In Phase III, to establish discriminant validity, surgical trainees and surgeons, divided into novice and experienced groups, constructed a side-to-side anastomosis on porcine small bowel using a linear cutting stapler. The participants' performances were videotaped and rated by 2 independent observers. Partial least squares regression was used to compute the weights for the task-specific metrics to obtain weighted total score. RESULTS: In Phase II, a total of 45 colorectal surgeons were surveyed: 28 with more than 15 years, 13 with 5 to 15 years, and 4 with less than 5 years of experience. The consensus was obtained on all the task-specific metrics in the more experienced groups. In Phase III, 20 subjects participated equally in both groups. The experienced group performed better than the novice group regardless of the rating scale used: global rating scale (p = 0.009) and the task-specific metrics (p = 0.012). After partial least squares regression, the weighted task-specific metric score continued to show that the experienced group performed better (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Task-specific metric items were developed based on expert consensus and showed good discriminant validity compared with a global rating scale between experienced and novice operators. These items can be used for evaluating technical skills in a stapled small bowel anastomosis model.

"It's Not Smooth Sailing": Bridging the Gap Between Methods and Content Expertise in Public Health Guideline Development.

BACKGROUND: The development of reliable, high quality health-related guidelines depends on explicit and transparent processes, methods aimed at minimising risks of bias and the inclusion of all relevant expertise and perspectives. While the methodological aspects of guidelines have been a focus to improve their quality, less is known about the social processes involved, for example, how guideline group members interact and communicate with one another, and how the evidence is considered in informing recommendations. With this in in mind, we aimed to empirically examine the perspectives and experiences of the key participants involved in developing public health guidelines for the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). DESIGN: This study was conducted using constructivist grounded theory as described by Charmaz, which informed our sampling, data collection, coding and analysis of interviews with key participants involved in developing public health guidelines. SETTING: Australian public health guidelines commissioned by the NHMRC. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty experts that were involved in Australian NHMRC public health guideline development, including working committee members with content topic expertise (n=16) and members of evidence review groups responsible for evaluating the evidence (n=4). RESULTS: Public health guideline development in Australia is a divided process. The division is driven by 3 related factors: the divergent disciplinary background and expertise that each group brings to the process; the methodological limitations of the framework, inherited from clinical medicine, that is used to assess the evidence; and barriers to communication between content experts and evidence reviewers around respective roles and methodological limitations. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest several improvements for a more functional and unified guideline development process: greater education of the working committee on the methodological process employed to evaluate evidence, improved communication on the role of the evidence review groups and better facilitation of the process so that the evidence review groups feel their contribution is valued.

The role of communication in breast cancer screening: a qualitative study with Australian experts.

BACKGROUND: One well-accepted strategy for optimising outcomes in mammographic breast cancer screening is to improve communication with women about screening. It is not always clear, however, what it is that communication should be expected to achieve, and why or how this is so. We investigated Australian experts' opinions on breast screening communication. Our research questions were: 1 What are the views of Australian experts about communicating with consumers on breast screening? 2 How do experts reason about this topic? METHODS: We used a qualitative methodology, interviewing 33 breast screening experts across Australia with recognisable influence in the Australian mammographic breast cancer screening setting. We used purposive and theoretical sampling to identify experts from different professional roles (including clinicians, program managers, policy makers, advocates and researchers) with a range of opinions about communication in breast screening. RESULTS: Experts discussed the topic of communication with consumers by focusing on two main questions: how strongly to guide consumers' breast cancer screening choices, and what to communicate about overdiagnosis. Each expert adopted one of three approaches to consumer communication depending on their views about these topics. We labelled these approaches: Be screened; Be screened and here's why; Screening is available please consider whether it's right for you. There was a similar level of support for all three approaches. Experts' reasoning was grounded in how they conceived of and prioritised their underlying values including: delivering benefits, avoiding harms, delivering more benefits than harms, respecting autonomy and transparency. CONCLUSIONS: There is disagreement between experts regarding communication with breast screening consumers. Our study provides some insights into this persisting lack of consensus, highlighting the different meanings that experts give to values, and different ways that values are prioritised. We suggest that explicit discussion about ethical values might help to focus thinking, clarify concepts and promote consensus in policy around communication with consumers. More specifically, we suggest that decision-makers who are considering policy on screening communication should begin with identifying and agreeing on the specific values to be prioritised and use this to guide them in establishing what the communication aims will be and which communication strategy will achieve those aims.

Framing overdiagnosis in breast screening: a qualitative study with Australian experts.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to identify how the topic of overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening is framed by experts and to clarify differences and similarities within these frames in terms of problems, causes, values and solutions. METHODS: We used a qualitative methodology using interviews with breast screening experts across Australia and applying framing theory to map and analyse their views about overdiagnosis. We interviewed 33 breast screening experts who influence the public and/or policy makers via one or more of: public or academic commentary; senior service management; government advisory bodies; professional committees; non-government/consumer organisations. Experts were currently or previously working in breast screening in a variety of roles including clinical practice, research, service provision and policy, consumer representation and advocacy. RESULTS: Each expert used one or more of six frames to conceptualise overdiagnosis in breast screening. Frames are described as: Overdiagnosis is harming women; Stop squabbling in public; Don't hide the problem from women; We need to know the overdiagnosis rate; Balancing harms and benefits is a personal matter; and The problem is overtreatment. Each frame contains a different but internally coherent account of what the problem is, the causes and solutions, and a moral evaluation. Some of the frames are at least partly commensurable with each other; others are strongly incommensurable. CONCLUSIONS: Experts have very different ways of framing overdiagnosis in breast screening. This variation may contribute to the ongoing controversy in this topic. The concept of experts using different frames when thinking and talking about overdiagnosis might be a useful tool for those who are trying to negotiate the complexity of expert disagreement in order to participate in decisions about screening.

Anatomical dissection: why are we cutting it out? Dissection in undergraduate teaching.

Anatomy teaching and, more specifically, the use of dissection in undergraduate anatomy teaching is undergoing a sea change in Australian medical schools. Until as recently as the 1970s, all medical students in Australia underwent an extensive course in dissection, taking up as much as 700 hours of curriculum time. Today, dissection is compulsory in only a minority of anatomy departments. There has been much discussion about the use of dissection in anatomy teaching, and both sides of the argument have considerable merit. Less widely discussed have been the other benefits of anatomical dissection, such as the development of surgical skills, an appreciation of whole-body pathology, and the teaching of ethical and moral issues that are central to the development of the professional doctor. Dissection still has an important role to play in undergraduate medical education.

What's wrong with the dead body? Use of the human cadaver in medical education.

A 2000 survey of Australian medical schools showed that use of anatomical dissection and autopsies for teaching has declined. Opinions vary between schools as to the effect on teaching of anatomy and pathology. However, exposure to the dissected human body may have benefits beyond this teaching, including inculcating the trait of "detached concern", teaching about medical fallibility and uncertainty, and raising issues of death and dying.