Why the study?
Does a procedure-specific clinical assessment tool differentiate between levels of experience in performing spinal anaesthesia?
Does a procedure-specific clinical assessment tool differentiate between levels of experience in performing spinal anaesthesia?
A clinical assessment tool comprising an error checklist and global rating scale can validly differentiate between levels of experience in performing spinal anaesthesia.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support competency assessment via error checklist and GRS in spinal anaesthesia; leaves open prospective validation before adoption.
BACKGROUND: There is a need for a procedure-specific means of assessment of clinical performance in anaesthesia. The aim of this study was to devise a tool for assessing the performance of spinal anaesthesia, which has both content and construct validity. METHODS: The clinical assessment tool was generated using a focus group discussion of practicing anaesthetists. The tool comprised three components: a checklist of 11 pre-defined errors, two time intervals and a six-item global rating scale (GRS). Thirty-one anaesthetists at three different levels of experience underwent testing using the clinical assessment tool: novice (n=10), intermediate (n=10) and expert (n=11). RESULTS: The error checklist and GRS scores but not the time intervals were significantly different between the three groups (P<0.005). CONCLUSION: The error checklist and GRS form the basis for a procedure-specific assessment tool for spinal anaesthesia.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Breen et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: