Development and Pilot Validation of an Instrument Assessing Sensorimotor Skills for Percutaneous Gastral Puncture.
AS-PEG
Assessment instrument
Content validation
Instrument development
Sensorimotor skills
Journal
Visceral medicine
ISSN: 2297-4725
Titre abrégé: Visc Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101681546
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2021
Jun 2021
Historique:
received:
16
10
2019
accepted:
03
09
2020
entrez:
12
7
2021
pubmed:
13
7
2021
medline:
13
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The acquisition of sensorimotor skills, so-called "technical skills", plays an essential part in the professional and continuing educational training of medical and nursing staff. Facilities turn to simulator training to promote the safe and accurate performance of endoscopic examinations. Thus, this study aimed to develop and pilot-test a corresponding assessment instrument to monitor necessary sensorimotor or "technical" skills of the examiner for a safe percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (AS-PEG). Instrument development and pilot validation involved four stages: identification of potential items and initial draft of the AS-PEG; expert panel with 11 experts (content validity index [CVI] calculated); empirical validation using a quasi-experimental intervention on simulators; revision of the pilot AS-PEG taking expert assessment, and empirical testing into consideration. The initial instrument yielded 13 categories and 44 items describing the PEG procedure. Experts rated 30 out of 44 items (68%) extremely or very important for the safety of the puncture of the stomach. Initial item-CVIs ranged from 0.00 to 1.00; scale-CVI was 0.61. Twenty-four trainees (7 physicians, 17 nurses) participated in the pilot simulation study. On average, 8:25 min were required for PEG placement (min-max 5:59-13:38 min, SD = 1:43). The revised AS-PEG version was reduced to 14 items with a range of the item CVI from 0.8 to 1.0, and a scale-CVI of 0.90. The AS-PEG instrument facilitates the evaluation of sensorimotor skills during percutaneous gastric puncture procedures within the context of PEG placement, across professions and without relating to the number of procedures previously performed. The instrument is economical and shows satisfying content validity.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34250079
doi: 10.1159/000511350
pii: vis-0037-0212
pmc: PMC8237800
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
212-218Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 by S. Karger AG, Basel.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
J Adv Nurs. 2014 Sep;70(9):1970-1979
pubmed: 24684713
Pflege. 2016 Jul;29(4):193-203
pubmed: 27239739
Endoscopy. 2011 Sep;43(9):802-7
pubmed: 21623558
Clin Nutr. 2005 Oct;24(5):848-61
pubmed: 16261664
Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Dec;72(6):1125-33, 1133.e1-3
pubmed: 21111866
Z Gastroenterol. 2018 Mar;56(3):239-248
pubmed: 29113003
Nurs Res. 1986 Nov-Dec;35(6):382-5
pubmed: 3640358
Med Educ. 2003 Sep;37(9):830-7
pubmed: 14506816
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Feb;34(2):404-409
pubmed: 30070394
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jun 13;(6):CD008237
pubmed: 22696375
J Am Coll Surg. 2007 Apr;204(4):697-705
pubmed: 17382230
Gut. 2016 Apr;65(4):607-15
pubmed: 25636697
Res Nurs Health. 1997 Jun;20(3):269-74
pubmed: 9179180
J Pediatr Surg. 1980 Dec;15(6):872-5
pubmed: 6780678
Gastrointest Endosc. 2017 Feb;85(2):273-281
pubmed: 28089029
Res Nurs Health. 2006 Oct;29(5):489-97
pubmed: 16977646
Gastrointest Endosc. 2009 Nov;70(5):835-45
pubmed: 19559433
Med Educ. 2008 Jun;42(6):619-27
pubmed: 18435710