Abstract

IntroductionThe Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) has developed milestones including procedural skills under the core competency of patient care. Progress in training is expected to be monitored by residency programs. To our knowledge, there exists no tool to evaluate pediatric resident laceration repair performance.MethodsThe Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills was adapted to evaluate resident laceration repair performance using two components: a global rating scale (GRS) and a checklist. Pediatric and family medicine residents at a tertiary care children's hospital were filmed performing a simulated laceration repair. Videos were evaluated by at least five physicians trained in laceration repair. Concordance correlation coefficients (CCC) were calculated for the GRS and checklist scores. Scores for each resident were compared across levels of training and procedural experience. Spearman's rank order correlations were calculated to compare the checklist and GRS.ResultsThirty residents were filmed performing laceration repair procedures. The CCC showed fair concordance across reviewers for the checklist (0.55, 95% CI: 0.38–0.69) and the GRS (0.53, 95% CI: 0.36–0.67). There was no significant difference in scores by self-reported experience or training level. There was correlation between the median GRS and checklist scores (Spearman ρ = 0.730, p < .001).ConclusionsA novel tool to evaluate resident laceration repair performance in a pediatric emergency department showed fair agreement across reviewers. The study tool is not precise enough for summative evaluation; however, it can be used to distinguish between trainees who have and have not attained competence in laceration repair for formative feedback.

Highlights

  • The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) has developed milestones including procedural skills under the core competency of patient care

  • The correlation coefficients (CCC) showed fair concordance across reviewers for the checklist (0.55, 95% CI: 0.38–0.69) and the global rating scale (GRS) (0.53, 95% CI: 0.36–0.67)

  • The study tool is not precise enough for summative evaluation; it can be used to distinguish between trainees who have and have not attained competence in laceration repair for formative feedback

Read more

Summary

Objectives

As the goal of our study was to develop a tool to discriminate between resident trainees in a PED, we limited our study enrollees to this population

Methods
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call