Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T04:14:16.889Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The TACTIC: development and validation of the Tool for Assessing Chest Tube Insertion Competency

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2015

Allan Evan Shefrin ,
Afshin Khazei ,
Geoffrey Robert Hung ,
Lisa Teres Odendal  and
Adam Cheng
Allan Evan Shefrin*
Affiliation:
Division of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON
Afshin Khazei
Affiliation:
Division of Emergency Medicine, Vancouver General Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
Geoffrey Robert Hung
Affiliation:
Canadian Medical Protective Association, Ottawa, ON
Lisa Teres Odendal
Affiliation:
Division of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Alberta Children’s Hospital, Calgary, AB
Adam Cheng
Affiliation:
KidSIM-Aspire Simulation Research Program, Section of Emergency Medicine, Alberta Children’s Hospital, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB
*
Correspondence to: Dr. Allan Evan Shefrin, 401 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON K1H 8L1; [email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Objectives: Pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) physicians receive little opportunity to practice and perform chest tube insertion. We sought to develop and validate a scoring tool to assess chest tube insertion competency and identify areas where training is required for PEM physicians.

Methods: We developed a 40-point, 20-item (scored 0, 1, or 2) assessment tool entitled the Tool for Assessing Chest Tube Insertion Competency (TACTIC) and studied how PEM physicians and fellows scored when inserting a chest tube into a pork rib model. Participants were scored at baseline and compared to themselves after receiving targeted training using Web-based animations and presentations followed by expert instruction and practice on chest tube insertion task trainers. All insertions were video recorded and reviewed by two blinded reviewers. Eight common videos were reviewed to assess interrater reliability.

Results: The TACTIC demonstrated good interrater reliability with an r2=0.86. Our cohort demonstrated a significant improvement in TACTIC scores by taking part in targeted training (precourse TACTIC=65%, 95% CI 54–76 v. postcourse TACTIC=84%, 95% CI 80–88), highlighting the construct validity of the TACTIC. Individual participants increased their TACTIC scores by an average of 17%.

Conclusions: The TACTIC demonstrates good interrater reliability, content validity, and construct validity in assessing a PEM practitioner’s skill inserting chest tubes in a simulated setting.

Résumé

Objectifs: Les médecins en médecine d’urgence pédiatrique (MUP) ne procèdent pas souvent à la pose de drains thoraciques. Aussi avons-nous cherché à élaborer et à valider un instrument de notation visant à évaluer la compétence relative à la pose de drains thoraciques, et à cerner les points faibles qui nécessiteraient une formation chez les médecins en MUP.

Méthode: Nous avons élaboré un instrument d’évaluation portant sur 20 tâches et noté sur 40 points (0, 1, 2), appelé Tool for Assessing Chest Drain Insertion Competency (TACTIC), et avons étudié les résultats de médecins et de stagiaires en MUP relativement à la pose de drains thoraciques dans un modèle porcin de gril thoracique. Les participants ont été évalués au départ, puis comparés à euxmêmes après une formation ciblée, comportant des animations et des pré sentations sur le Web, un enseignement thé orique donné par des spé cialistes et la pratique de la pose de drains thoraciques sur des simulateurs passifs («task trainers»). Toutes les poses de drain ont été enregistrées sur vidéo, puis examinées par deux examinateurs tenus dans l’ignorance des faits. Huit vidéos courantes ont été revues aux fins d’évaluation de la fiabilité interévaluateurs.

Résultats: L’instrument TACTIC a obtenu de bons résultats au regard de la fiabilité interé valuateurs: ρ2=0.86. De son côté , la cohorte a connu une amélioration sensible des résultats, selon la grille TACTIC (avant le cours: 65%; IC à 95%: 54–76; après le cours: 84%, IC à 95%: 80–88), après avoir suivi une formation ciblée, ce qui confirme la validité de construction de l’instrument TACTIC. La note de chacun des participants, selon la grille TACTIC, a augmenté en moyenne de 17%.

Conclusions: Les résultats de l’étude ont démontré que l’instrument TACTIC possé dait une bonne fiabilité interévaluateurs, une validité de contenu et une validité de construction, dans l’évaluation de la compétence de praticiens en MUP, relative à la pose de drains thoraciques, en simulation.

Type
Original Research
Information
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , March 2015 , pp. 140 - 147
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2015 

References

1. Mikrogianakis, A, Valani, R, Cheng, A. The Hospital for Sick Children manual of pediatric trauma, 1st ed Philadelphia Wolter Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.Google Scholar
2. Al-Eissa, M, Chu, S, Lynch, T, et al. Self-reported experience and competence in core procedures among Canadian pediatric emergency medicine fellowship trainees. CJEM 2008;10:533–538.Google Scholar
3. Paul, RI, King, L. Technical skills experiences in pediatric emergency medicine fellowship programs. Pediatr Emerg Care 1996;12:10–12, doi:10.1097/00006565-199602000-00003.Google Scholar
4. Ball, CG, Lord, J, Laupland, KB, et al. Chest tube complications: how well are we training our residents? Can J Surg 2007;50:450–458.Google Scholar
5. Cook, D, Hatala, R, Brydges, R, et al. Technology-enhanced simulation for health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2011;306:977.Google Scholar
6. Issenberg, SB. The scope of simulation-based healthcare education. Simul Healthc 2006;1:203–208, doi:10.1097/01.SIH.0000246607.36504.5a.Google Scholar
7. Bond, WF, Spillane, L. The use of simulation for emergency medicine resident assessment. Acad Emerg Med 2002;9:1295–1299, doi:10.1197/aemj.9.11.1295.Google Scholar
8. Lammers, RL, Davenport, M, Korley, F, et al. Teaching and assessing procedural skills using simulation: metrics and methodology. Acad Emerg Med 2008;15:1079–1087, doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2008.00233.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Nestel, D, Groom, J, Eikeland-Husebo, S, et al. Simulation for learning and teaching procedural skills: the state of the science. Simul Healthc 2011;6(7 Suppl):S10–3, doi:10.1097/SIH.0b013e318227ce96.Google Scholar
10. Sanchez, LD, Delapena, J, Kelly, SP, et al. Procedure lab used to improve confidence in the performance of rarely performed procedures. Eur J Emerg Med 2006;13:29–31, doi:10.1097/00063110-200602000-00007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Ruddy, RM. Insertion of a chest tube. In Fleisher GR, Ludwig S, Henretig FM, et al Textbook of pediatric emergency medicine, 5th ed. Philadelphia Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 2006, p 1904.Google Scholar
12. Donoghue, AM, Ventre, K, Boulet, J, et al. Design, implementation, and psychometric analysis of a scoring instrument for simulated pediatric resuscitation: a report from the EXPRESS pediatric investigators. Simul Healthc 2011;6:71–77, doi:10.1097/SIH.0b013e31820c44da.Google Scholar
13. Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. Objectives of training in pediatric emergency medicine. Available at: http://rcpsc.medical.org/information/index.php?specialty=462&submit=Select (accessed August 1, 2013).Google Scholar
14. American Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Emergency medicine guidleines. Available at: http://www.acgme.org/acWebsite/RRC_110/110_guidelines.asp#res (accessed August 1, 2013).Google Scholar
15. Nargozian, CD. Simulation and airway-management training. Curr Opin Anesthesiol 2004;17:511–512, doi:10.1097/00001503-200412000-00011.Google Scholar
16. Vozenilek, J, Huff, JS, Reznek, M, et al. See one, do one, teach one: advanced technology in medical education. Acad Emerg Med 2004;11:1149–1154, doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2004.tb00698.x.Google Scholar
17. Dawson, S. Procedural simulation: a primer. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2006;17:205–213, doi:10.1097/01.RVI.0000194871.97225.CA.Google Scholar
18. Niemi-Murola, L, Helenius, I, Turunen, J, et al. Graduating medical students and emergency procedure skill teaching in Finland—does a clinical skills centre make the difference? Med Teach 2007;29:821–826, doi:10.1080/01421590701601568.Google Scholar
19. Nishisaki, A, Hales, R, Biagas, K, et al. A multi-institutional high-fidelity simulation ‘‘boot camp’’ orientation and training program for first year pediatric critical care fellows. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2009;10:157–162, doi:10.1097/PCC.0b013e3181956d29.Google Scholar
20. van der Vlugt, TM, Harter, PM. Teaching procedural skills to medical students: one institution’s experience with an emergency procedures course. Ann Emerg Med 2002;40:41–49, doi:10.1067/mem.2002.125613.Google Scholar
21. House, AK, House, J. Improving basic surgical skills for final yearmedical students: the value of a rural weekend. Aust N Z J Surg 2000;70:344–347, doi:10.1046/j.1440-1622.2000.01824.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Cook, D, Hamstra, S, Brydges, R, et al. Comparative effectiveness of instructional design features in simulationbased education: systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Teach 2013;35:e867 doi:10.3109/0142159X.2012.714886.Google Scholar
23. Fleisher, GR, Ludwig, S. editors Textbook of emergency medicine, 5th ed Philadelphia Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005.Google Scholar
24. Brett-Fleegler, MB, Vinci, RJ, Weiner, DL, et al. A simulatorbased tool that assesses pediatric resident resuscitation competency. Pediatrics 2008;121:e597 doi:10.1542/peds.2005-1259.Google Scholar
25. Ventre, KM, Collingridge, DS, DeCarlo, DM, et al. Performance of a consensus scoring algorithm for assessing pediatric advanced life support competency using a computer screen-based simulator. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2009;10:623–635, doi:10.1097/PCC.0b013e3181b00ee4.Google Scholar
26. Huang, GC, Newman, LR, Schwartzstein, RM, et al. Procedural competence in internal medicine residents: validity of a central venous catheter insertion assessment instrument. Acad Med 2009;84:1127–1134, doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181acf491.Google Scholar
27. Friedman, ZMD, Katznelson, RMD, Devito, IMD, et al. Objective assessment of manual skills and proficiency in performing epidural anesthesia-video-assisted validation. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2006;31:304–310, doi:10.1097/00115550-200607000-00005.Google Scholar
28. Friedman, ZMD, Siddiqui, NMD, Katznelson, RMD, et al. Experience is not enough: repeated breaches in epidural anesthesia aseptic technique by novice operators despite improved skill. Anesthesiology 2008;108:914–920, doi:10.1097/ALN.0b013e31816bbdb6.Google Scholar