Key result
A clinical assessment tool for ultrasound-guided axillary block demonstrated high inter-rater reliability (0.842 for checklist) and successfully differentiated between levels of expertise (P<0.05).
Why the study?
Is a procedure-specific clinical assessment tool reliable and valid for evaluating ultrasound-guided axillary brachial plexus block performance?
Observational (n=15)
Blinded assessors
No
Is a procedure-specific clinical assessment tool reliable and valid for evaluating ultrasound-guided axillary brachial plexus block performance?
Effect estimate: Inter-rater reliability 0.842 for checklist and 0.795 for global rating scale
p-value: p=<0.05
A 63-point task-specific checklist and global rating scale provide reliable and valid assessment of ultrasound-guided axillary brachial plexus block performance across different expertise levels.
May aid competency evaluation during training; leaves open whether implementation improves block success or safety.
BACKGROUND: Competency in anesthesia traditionally has been determined subjectively in practice. Optimal training in procedural skills requires valid and reliable forms of assessment. The objective was to examine a procedure-specific clinical assessment tool for ultrasound-guided axillary brachial plexus block for inter-rater reliability and construct validity in a clinical setting. METHOD: This was a prospective observational study. Using prior work at our institution, the clinical assessment tool was developed consisting of a 63-point task-specific checklist and a global rating scale. The anesthesiologists were assigned to three groups based on prior experience of performing an axillary block: group 1 ('novices') < 10 procedures, group 2 ('intermediates') 50-80 procedures and group 3 ('experts') > 100 procedures. Each participant performed two consecutive blocks that were videotaped. Two blinded independent experts trained in the marking of the tool evaluated the videotapes. RESULTS: There were five participants per group. The inter-rater reliability between assessors was 0.842 and 0.795 for the checklist and global rating scale, respectively. There was a consistent difference between (each pair of) the three groups in terms of both the checklist and global rating scale (P < 0.05). For the checklist, expert vs. intermediate group P = 0.023, expert vs. novice group P < 0.001 and intermediate vs. novice group P = 0.019. For the global rating scale, expert vs. intermediate group P < 0.001, expert vs. novice group gave P < 0.001 and intermediate vs. novice group P = 0.023. CONCLUSION: The objective of task-specific checklist and global rating scale are reliable and valid measures of axillary block performance between different levels of expertise.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sultan et al. (2012) conducted an observational in Anesthesia procedural skill assessment (n=15). Clinical assessment tool (63-point checklist and global rating scale) vs. Different levels of provider expertise was evaluated on Inter-rater reliability and construct validity (score differences between expertise levels) (Inter-rater reliability 0.842 for checklist and 0.795 for global rating scale, p=<0.05). A clinical assessment tool for ultrasound-guided axillary block demonstrated high inter-rater reliability (0.842 for checklist) and successfully differentiated between levels of expertise (P<0.05).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: