Key result
Expert anaesthetists completed more steps (mean 41.0 vs. 33.1, p=0.001) and had fewer total errors (3.5 vs. 9.1, p<0.0001) than novices when assessed with the novel tool.
Why the study?
Does a novel metrics-based assessment tool reliably discriminate between expert and novice performance in ultrasound-guided axillary brachial plexus blocks?
Observational (n=13)
Does a novel metrics-based assessment tool reliably discriminate between expert and novice performance in ultrasound-guided axillary brachial plexus blocks?
Absolute Event Rate: 41% vs 33.1%
p-value: p=0.001
The novel metrics-based assessment tool is valid and reliably discriminates between expert and novice performance for ultrasound-guided axillary brachial plexus blocks.
The purpose of this study was to examine the construct validity and reliability of a novel metrics-based assessment tool, previously developed for ultrasound-guided axillary brachial plexus block. Five expert and eight novice anaesthetists performed a total of 18 ultrasound-guided axillary brachial plexus blocks on the same number of patients. A trained investigator video-taped procedures according to a pre-defined protocol. Two trained consultant anaesthetists independently scored the videos using the assessment tool. Compared with novices, experts completed more steps (mean 41.0 vs. 33.1, p = 0.001), had fewer procedural errors (2.8 vs. 7.9, p < 0.0001), had fewer critical errors (0.8 vs. 1.3, p = 0.030), and fewer total errors (3.5 vs. 9.1, p < 0.0001). The mean inter-rater reliability for scoring of experts' performance was 0.91, for novices' performance was 0.84, and for all performance combined (n = 18) was 0.88. This assessment tool is valid, and discriminates reliably between expert and novice performance for placement of ultrasound-guided axillary brachial plexus blocks.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ahmed et al. (2016) conducted an observational in ultrasound-guided axillary brachial plexus block (n=13). Expertise level (expert) vs. Novice level was evaluated on Completed steps (p=0.001). Expert anaesthetists completed more steps (mean 41.0 vs. 33.1, p=0.001) and had fewer total errors (3.5 vs. 9.1, p<0.0001) than novices when assessed with the novel tool.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: