Visuo-spatial ability in colonoscopy simulator training

Visuo-spatial ability is associated with a quality of performance in a variety of surgical and medical skills. However, visuo-spatial ability is typically assessed using Visualization tests only, which led to an incomplete understanding of the involvement of visuo-spatial ability in these skills. To remedy this situation, the current study investigated the role of a broad range of visuo-spatial factors in colonoscopy simulator training. Fifteen medical trainees (no clinical experience in colonoscopy) participated in two psycho-metric test sessions to assess four visuo-spatial ability factors. Next, participants trained flexible endoscope manipulation, and navigation to the cecum on the GI Mentor II simulator, for four sessions within 1 week. Visualization, and to a lesser degree Spatial relations were the only visuo-spatial ability factors to correlate with colonoscopy simulator performance. Visualization additionally covaried with learning rate for time on task on both simulator tasks. High Visualization ability indicated faster exercise completion. Similar to other endoscopic procedures, performance in colonoscopy is positively associated with Visualization, a visuo-spatial ability factor characterized by the ability to mentally manipulate complex visuo-spatial stimuli. The complexity of the visuo-spatial mental transformations required to successfully perform colonoscopy is likely responsible for the challenging nature of this technique, and should inform training- and assessment design. Long term training studies, as well as studies investigating the nature of visuo-spatial complexity in this domain are needed to better understand the role of visuo-spatial ability in colonoscopy, and other endoscopic techniques

Towards standardized measurement of adverse events in spine surgery: conceptual model and pilot evaluation

BACKGROUND: Independent of efficacy, information on safety of surgical procedures is essential for informed choices. We seek to develop standardized methodology for describing the safety of spinal operations and apply these methods to study lumbar surgery. We present a conceptual model for evaluating the safety of spine surgery and describe development of tools to measure principal components of this model: (1) specifying outcome by explicit criteria for adverse event definition, mode of ascertainment, cause, severity, or preventability, and (2) quantitatively measuring predictors such as patient factors, comorbidity, severity of degenerative spine disease, and invasiveness of spine surgery. METHODS: We created operational definitions for 176 adverse occurrences and established multiple mechanisms for reporting them. We developed new methods to quantify the severity of adverse occurrences, degeneration of lumbar spine, and invasiveness of spinal procedures. Using kappa statistics and intra-class correlation coefficients, we assessed agreement for the following: four reviewers independently coding etiology, preventability, and severity for 141 adverse occurrences, two observers coding lumbar spine degenerative changes in 10 selected cases, and two researchers coding invasiveness of surgery for 50 initial cases. RESULTS: During the first six months of prospective surveillance, rigorous daily medical record reviews identified 92.6% of the adverse occurrences we recorded, and voluntary reports by providers identified 38.5% (surgeons reported 18.3%, inpatient rounding team reported 23.1%, and conferences discussed 6.1%). Trained observers had fair agreement in classifying etiology of 141 adverse occurrences into 18 categories (kappa = 0.35), but agreement was substantial (kappa ≥ 0.61) for 4 specific categories: technical error, failure in communication, systems failure, and no error. Preventability assessment had moderate agreement (mean weighted kappa = 0.44). Adverse occurrence severity rating had fair agreement (mean weighted kappa = 0.33) when using a scale based on the JCAHO Sentinel Event Policy, but agreement was substantial for severity ratings on a new 11-point numerical severity scale (ICC = 0.74). There was excellent inter-rater agreement for a lumbar degenerative disease severity score (ICC = 0.98) and an index of surgery invasiveness (ICC = 0.99). CONCLUSION: Composite measures of disease severity and surgery invasiveness may allow development of risk-adjusted predictive models for adverse events in spine surgery. Standard measures of adverse events and risk adjustment may also facilitate post-marketing surveillance of spinal devices, effectiveness research, and quality improvement

Assessing the Quality of Clinical Teachers: A Systematic Review of Content and Quality of Questionnaires for Assessing Clinical Teachers

BACKGROUND: Learning in a clinical environment differs from formal educational settings and provides specific challenges for clinicians who are teachers. Instruments that reflect these challenges are needed to identify the strengths and weaknesses of clinical teachers. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the content, validity, and aims of questionnaires used to assess clinical teachers. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and ERIC from 1976 up to March 2010. REVIEW METHODS: The searches revealed 54 papers on 32 instruments. Data from these papers were documented by independent researchers, using a structured format that included content of the instrument, validation methods, aims of the instrument, and its setting. Results : Aspects covered by the instruments predominantly concerned the use of teaching strategies (included in 30 instruments), supporter role (29), role modeling (27), and feedback (26). Providing opportunities for clinical learning activities was included in 13 instruments. Most studies referred to literature on good clinical teaching, although they failed to provide a clear description of what constitutes a good clinical teacher. Instrument length varied from 1 to 58 items. Except for two instruments, all had to be completed by clerks/residents. Instruments served to provide formative feedback ( instruments) but were also used for resource allocation, promotion, and annual performance review (14 instruments). All but two studies reported on internal consistency and/or reliability; other aspects of validity were examined less frequently. CONCLUSIONS: No instrument covered all relevant aspects of clinical teaching comprehensively. Validation of the instruments was often limited to assessment of internal consistency and reliability. Available instruments for assessing clinical teachers should be used carefully, especially for consequential decisions. There is a need for more valid comprehensive instruments