Alphonsus Chong's Personal Wiki

User Tools

Site Tools

Trace: • henry2008 • giladi2016 • graham2016 • tsai2011 • gan1995
jnl:rajan2019

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision 		Previous revision
jnl:rajan2019 [2020/05/12 02:34]
admin [Commentary] added conclusion comment 		jnl:rajan2019 [2020/07/31 07:44] (current)
admin [Commentary]
Line 1: Line 1:
-=====Title===== +=====Objective Assessment of Microsurgery Competency-In Search of a Validated Tool=====
-Objective Assessment of Microsurgery Competency-In Search of a Validated Tool.+
  
 ====Abstract==== ====Abstract====
-Microsurgical skill acquisition is an integral component of training in plastic surgery. Current microsurgical training is based on the subjective Halstedian model. An ideal microsurgery assessment tool should be able to deconstruct all the subskills of microsurgery and assess them objectively and reliably. For our study, to analyze the feasibility, reliability, and validity of microsurgery skill assessment, a video-based objective structured assessment of technical skill tool was chosen. Two blinded experts evaluated 40 videos of six residents performing microsurgical anastomosis for arteriovenous fistula surgery. The generic Reznick's global rating score (GRS) and University of Western Ontario microsurgical skills acquisition/assessment (UWOMSA) instrument were used as checklists. Correlation coefficients of 0.75 to 0.80 (UWOMSA) and 0.71 to 0.77 (GRS) for interrater and intrarater reliability showed that the assessment tools were reliable. Convergent validity of the UWOMSA tool with the prevalidated GRS tool showed good agreement. The mean improvement of scores with years of residency was measured with analysis of variance. Both UWOMSA ( p -value: 0.034) and GRS ( p -value: 0.037) demonstrated significant improvement in scores from postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) to PGY2 and a less marked improvement from PGY2 to PGY3. We conclude that objective assessment of microsurgical skills in an actual clinical setting is feasible. Tools like UWOMSA are valid and reliable for microsurgery assessment and provide feedback to chart progression of learning. Acceptance and validation of such objective assessments will help to improve training and bring uniformity to microsurgery education.+Microsurgical skill acquisition is an integral component of training in plastic surgery. Current microsurgical training is based on the subjective Halstedian model. An ideal microsurgery assessment tool should be able to deconstruct all the subskills of microsurgery and assess them objectively and reliably. For our study, to analyze the feasibility, reliability, and validity of microsurgery skill assessment, a video-based objective structured assessment of technical skill tool was chosen. Two blinded experts evaluated 40 videos of six residents performing microsurgical anastomosis for arteriovenous fistula surgery. The generic [[ac:grs-reznick|Reznick's global rating score (GRS)]] and University of Western Ontario microsurgical skills acquisition/assessment ([[ac:UWOMSA]]) instrument were used as checklists. Correlation coefficients of 0.75 to 0.80 (UWOMSA) and 0.71 to 0.77 ([[ac:grs-reznick|GRS]]) for interrater and intrarater reliability showed that the assessment tools were reliable. Convergent validity of the [[ac:UWOMSA]] tool with the prevalidated GRS tool showed good agreement. The mean improvement of scores with years of residency was measured with analysis of variance. Both UWOMSA ( p -value: 0.034) and GRS ( p -value: 0.037) demonstrated significant improvement in scores from postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) to PGY2 and a less marked improvement from PGY2 to PGY3. We conclude that objective assessment of microsurgical skills in an actual clinical setting is feasible. Tools like [[ac:UWOMSA]] are valid and reliable for microsurgery assessment and provide feedback to chart progression of learning. Acceptance and validation of such objective assessments will help to improve training and bring uniformity to microsurgery education.
  
 ====Commentary==== ====Commentary====
 Model used  Model used 
-  * AVF surgery in patients+  * AVF surgery in patients -- //in my view not a real microsurgery model//
  
 Assessment   Assessment  
-  * video assessment using GRS and UWOMSA+  * video assessment using GRS and [[ac:UWOMSA]]. see link for scores: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6785309/bin/10-1055-s-0039-1695658_s11118.pdf
  
 Good:  Good: 
   - blinding, independent assessors   - blinding, independent assessors
   - fairly good inter- and intra-rater reliability   - fairly good inter- and intra-rater reliability
 +  - references look fairly complete
  
 Issues/Noteworthy: Issues/Noteworthy:
   - Uses GRS as a gold standard -- is that appropriate?   - Uses GRS as a gold standard -- is that appropriate?
-  - Not stated in abstract: UWOMSA only statistically significant for knot-tying and not anastomosis+  - Not stated in abstract: [[ac:UWOMSA]] only statistically significant for knot-tying and not anastomosis
   - How long was each anastomosis? How does time taken affect result?   - How long was each anastomosis? How does time taken affect result?
   - Use of different PGY years as comparison - may not be the best; assumption is that PGY 3 better than 2 better than 1   - Use of different PGY years as comparison - may not be the best; assumption is that PGY 3 better than 2 better than 1
   - very small n for each group in PGY   - very small n for each group in PGY
-  - Inter-rater reliability seems better than intra-rater (time interval?) +  - Inter-rater reliability seems better than intra-rater (time interval?) - //perhaps training the assessors would help// 
-  - UWOMSA anastomosis module only 0.53-0.56 R^2+  - [[ac:UWOMSA]] anastomosis module only 0.53-0.56 R^2
   - no data spread shown - only mean scores   - no data spread shown - only mean scores
-  - UWOMSA with GRS - R2 is 0.71-0.74 +  - [[ac:UWOMSA]] with GRS - R2 is 0.71-0.74 
-  - Strangely enough, the authors recommend UWOMSA, although GRS seems to have better intra- and inter-rater reliability. Perhaps it is because as a tool to provide feedback, it is not useful. That is a weakness of global/ generic type scoring systems.+  - Strangely enough, the authors recommend [[ac:UWOMSA]], although GRS seems to have better intra- and inter-rater reliability. Perhaps this is because, as a tool to provide feedback, it is not useful. That is a weakness of global/ generic type scoring systems.
  
 ====Source===== ====Source=====
 Rajan, S., Sathyan, R., Sreelesh, L. S., Kallerey, A. A., Antharjanam, A., Sumitha, R., … Soumya, S. (2019). Objective Assessment of Microsurgery Competency-In Search of a Validated Tool. Indian Journal of Plastic Surgery : Official Publication of the Association of Plastic Surgeons of India, 52(2), 216–221. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1695658 Rajan, S., Sathyan, R., Sreelesh, L. S., Kallerey, A. A., Antharjanam, A., Sumitha, R., … Soumya, S. (2019). Objective Assessment of Microsurgery Competency-In Search of a Validated Tool. Indian Journal of Plastic Surgery : Official Publication of the Association of Plastic Surgeons of India, 52(2), 216–221. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1695658
 +
 +====See also====
 +[[ac:microsurgery_assessment]]
jnl/rajan2019.1589250855.txt.gz · Last modified: 2020/05/12 02:34 by admin

Page Tools

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki