Use of sensors to quantify procedural idle time: Validity evidence for a new mastery metric.
Journal
Surgery
ISSN: 1532-7361
Titre abrégé: Surgery
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0417347
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2020
Apr 2020
Historique:
received:
28
03
2019
revised:
25
06
2019
accepted:
11
09
2019
pubmed:
12
11
2019
medline:
26
6
2020
entrez:
12
11
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Quantification of mastery is the first step in using objective metrics for teaching. We hypothesized that during orotracheal intubation, top tier performers have less idle time compared to lower tier performers. At the Anesthesiology 2018 Annual Meeting, 82 participants intubated a normal airway simulator and a burnt airway simulator. The movements of the participant's laryngoscope were quantified using electromagnetic motion sensors. Top tier performers were defined as participants who intubated both simulators successfully in less than the median time for each simulator. Idle time was defined as the duration of time when the laryngoscope was not moving. Top performers showed less Idle Time when intubating the normal airway compared to lower tier performers (14.5 ± 9.8 seconds vs 34.0 ± 52.0 seconds, respectively P < .01). Likewise, top performers showed less Idle Time when intubating the burnt airway compared to lower tier performers (18.6 ± 15.2 seconds vs 63.4 ± 59.11 seconds; P < .01). Comparing performance on the burnt airway to the normal airway, there was a difference for lower tier performers (63.4 ± 59.1 seconds vs 34.0 ± 52.0 seconds; P < .01) but not for top tier performers (18.6 ± 15.2 seconds vs 14.5 ± 9.8 seconds; P = .07). Similar to our previous findings with other procedures, Idle Time was shown to have known group validity evidence when comparing top performers with lower tier performers. Further, Idle Time was correlated with procedure difficulty in our prior work. We observed statistically significant differences in Idle Times for lower tier performers when comparing the normal airway to the burnt airway but not for top tier performers. Our findings support the continued exploration of Idle Time for development of objective assessment and curricula.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Quantification of mastery is the first step in using objective metrics for teaching. We hypothesized that during orotracheal intubation, top tier performers have less idle time compared to lower tier performers.
METHODS
METHODS
At the Anesthesiology 2018 Annual Meeting, 82 participants intubated a normal airway simulator and a burnt airway simulator. The movements of the participant's laryngoscope were quantified using electromagnetic motion sensors. Top tier performers were defined as participants who intubated both simulators successfully in less than the median time for each simulator. Idle time was defined as the duration of time when the laryngoscope was not moving.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Top performers showed less Idle Time when intubating the normal airway compared to lower tier performers (14.5 ± 9.8 seconds vs 34.0 ± 52.0 seconds, respectively P < .01). Likewise, top performers showed less Idle Time when intubating the burnt airway compared to lower tier performers (18.6 ± 15.2 seconds vs 63.4 ± 59.11 seconds; P < .01). Comparing performance on the burnt airway to the normal airway, there was a difference for lower tier performers (63.4 ± 59.1 seconds vs 34.0 ± 52.0 seconds; P < .01) but not for top tier performers (18.6 ± 15.2 seconds vs 14.5 ± 9.8 seconds; P = .07).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Similar to our previous findings with other procedures, Idle Time was shown to have known group validity evidence when comparing top performers with lower tier performers. Further, Idle Time was correlated with procedure difficulty in our prior work. We observed statistically significant differences in Idle Times for lower tier performers when comparing the normal airway to the burnt airway but not for top tier performers. Our findings support the continued exploration of Idle Time for development of objective assessment and curricula.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31708084
pii: S0039-6060(19)30672-5
doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2019.09.016
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
693-698Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.