International implementation of a PROficiency based StePwise Endovascular Curricular Training (PROSPECT) in daily practice

Objective: A randomised controlled trial (RCT) showed superior real life endovascular performance of trainees after PROficiency based StePwise Endovascular Curricular Training (PROSPECT) compared with traditional training. This study aimed to determine whether PROSPECT can be implemented routinely in surgical training (registry) and to identify the associated effects, facilitators, and barriers to implementation. Methods: This was a multicentre prospective registry to evaluate real life PROSPECT implementation effects. Cognitive ability was tested with a Multiple Choice Question test (MCQ) (max. score 20 points), while technical skills were assessed with a Global Rating Scale (GRS) (max. score 55 points), Examiner's Checklist (max, score 85 points), and simulator metrics. A cross sectional anonymous survey for both trainees and faculty evaluated the programme's implementation. Results: The PROSPECT registry was implemented in five centres in four countries over a period of three years. Only 17 of 48 starting trainees completed PROSPECT, resulting in a dropout rate of 65%. Participants who completed the programme showed significant improvement in the GRS (median 26 vs. 44, p = .018) and Examiner's Checklist (median 53.5 vs. 80, p = .028) after the programme. The survey was completed by 13/17 faculty members (76%) and 38/57 trainees who participated either in the initial PROSPECT RCT or the registry (67%). PROSPECT was perceived to provide more endovascular training opportunities, but non-availability of logistical/technical support, lack of training time within the working schedule, and little trainee motivation hindered broad implementation. Conclusion: PROSPECT has a significant effect on performance, and trainees and faculty agree that PROSPECT is a valuable addition to surgical training. However, external and internal factors pose significant barriers to integration of this simulation based programme into daily practice leading to a high dropout rate. To integrate PROSPECT into contemporary surgical training, it should be a prerequisite to treating real patients and protected training time should be provided, combined with accessible support

European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) Certification of Theoretical and Practical Competences in Basic Vascular Ultrasound: Validity Investigation of the Assessment Tools

Objective: The aim of this study was to gather validity evidence for the Assessment of basic Vascular Ultrasound Expertise (AVAUSE) tool, and to establish a pass/fail score for each component, to support decisions for certification. Methods: A cross sectional validation study performed during the European Society for Vascular Surgery’s annual meeting.Validity evidence was sought for the theoretical test and two practical tests based on Messick’s framework. The participants were vascular surgeons, vascular surgical trainees, sonographers, and nurses with varying experience levels. Five vascular ultrasound experts developed the theoretical and two practical test components of the AVAUSE tool for each test component. Two stations were set up for carotid examinations and two for superficial venous incompetence (SVI) examinations. Eight raters were assigned in pairs to each station. Three methods were used to set pass/fail scores: contrasting groups’ method; rater consensus; and extended Angoff. Results: Nineteen participants were enrolled. Acceptable internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) for the AVAUSE theoretical (0.93), carotid (0.84), and SVI (0.65) practical test were shown. In the carotid examination, inter-rater reliability (IRR) for the two rater pairs was good: 0.68 and 0.78, respectively. The carotid scores correlated significantly with years of experience (Pearson’s r 1⁄4 0.56, p 1⁄4 .013) but not with number of examinations in the last five years. For SVI, IRR was excellent at 0.81 and 0.87. SVI performance scores did not correlate with years of experience and number of examinations. The pass/fail score set by the contrasting groups’ method was 29 points out of 50. The rater set pass/fail scores were 3.0 points for both carotid and SVI examinations and were used to determine successful participants. Ten of 19 participants passed the tests and were certified. Conclusion: Validity evidence was sought and established for the AVAUSE comprehensive tool, including pass/fail standards. AVAUSE can be used to assess competences in basic vascular ultrasound, allowing operators to progress towards independent practice