ESTABLISHING VALIDITY FOR A CHEST SIMULATION MODEL FOR TORACOCENTESIS TRAINING
The aim – to evaluate the validity of a human chest model for simulation-based training for thoracentesis.
Material and methods. The procedure was performed by participants with different levels of practical skills (students, residents and doctors). The videos were assessed by a skilled surgeon independently. They didn’t know about capacity of the participants. We used a modified checklist as an assessment tool, which was based on the checklist, proposed by the Copenhagen Academy of Medical Education and Modeling.
Results. All 24 participants (16 students, 6 residents, 2 doctors) performed 3 thoracocentesis procedures on the simulation model, the database consisted of 72 videos. The internal consistency of the checklist was sufficient (Cronbach’s α 0.72). The level of inter-expert reliability was significant (κ 0.68 at p<0.001). Experienced participants scored significantly higher scores on each of the three trials than students and residents (H-score for trial #1, 2, 3 – 11.3086, p=0.004; 16.1346, p<0.001; 16.4702, p<0.001, respectively). Based on the method of contrasting groups, the minimum acceptable threshold of points for confirming the level of competence was established (27 and 30 points for students and residents, respectively). Students and residents showed significantly better results after 3 procedures (χ2 Friedman 25.290, p<0.001; 9.238, p=0.01, respectively). Also, students significantly increased their speed of the procedure after completing 3 attempts (χ2 Friedman 22.875, p<0.001).
Conclusion. The totality evidence showed high-level of validation of simulation model which was developed by the initiative group of the FEFU School of Medicine.
Keywords:thoracocentesis; simulation training; simulation model; student training
Funding. The study had no sponsor support.
Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
For citation: Stegniy K.V., Ozherelev A.V., Ozherelev E.V., Dvoinikova E.R., Krekoten A.A., Maslyantcev E.V., Goncharuk R.A. Establishing validity for a chest simulation model for toracocentesis training. Meditsinskoe obrazovanie i professional’noe razvitie [Medical Education and Professional Development]. 2022; 13 (1): 31–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33029/2220-8453-2022-13-1-31-38 (in Russian)
1. Barsuk J.H., Cohen E.R., Feinglass J., Kozmic S.E., McGaghie W.C., Ganger D., Wayne D.B. Cost savings of performing paracentesis procedures at the bedside after simulation-based education. Simulation in Healthcare: Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare. 2014; 9 (5): 312–8.
2. Hernandez M.C., Khatib M.E., Prokop L., Zielinski M.D., Aho J.M. Complications in tube thoracostomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis. The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. 2018; 85 (2): 410–6.
3. Salimov D. Sh., Krajnyukov P.E., Vorobev A.A., Kalashnikov A.V., Travin N.O. Pleural drainage in emergencies in thoracic surgery lessons learned. Text: electronic. Vestnik Nacional’nogo mediko-hirurgicheskogo Centra im. N.I. Pirogova [Bulletin of The National Medical and Surgical Center Named after N.I. Pirogov]. 2020; 15 (1). URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=43010742 (date of the application: 05.11.2021).
4. Berkenstadt H., Munz Y., Trodler G., Blumenfeld A., Rubin O., Ziv A. Evaluation of the Trauma-Man® Simulator for Training in Chest Drain Insertion. European Journal of Trauma. 2006; 32: 523–6.
5. Al-Qadhi S.A., Pirie J.R., Constas N., Corrin M.S.C., Ali M. An innovative pediatric chest tube insertion task trainer simulation: a technical report and pilot study. Simulation in Healthcare: Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare. 2014; 9 (5): 319–24.
6. Gazimieva B.M., Boronova V.V., Guzik A.A., Kim E.V., Odinokova S.N., Edgaev D.A., Gorshkov M.D., Shubina L.B., Gribkov D.M., Leontyev A.V. Validation of the BESTA course – basic endosurgical simulation training and certification. Virtual’nye tehnologii v medicine. [Virtual technologies in medicine]. 2016; 1 (1): 40–4. (in Russian)
7. Cook D.A., Hatala R. Validation of educational assessments: a primer for simulation and beyond. Advances in Simulation (London, England). 2016; 1: 31.
8. Rasmussen K.M.B., Hertz P., Laursen C.B., Arshad A., Saghir Z., Clementsen P.F., Konge L. Ensuring Basic Competence in Thoracentesis. Respiration; International Review of Thoracic Diseases. 2019; 97 (5): 463–71.
9. Jørgensen M., Konge L., Subhi Y. Contrasting groups’ standard setting for consequences analysis in validity studies: reporting considerations. Advances in Simulation (London, England). 2018; 3: 5.
10. Elghoul Y., Bahri F., Trabelsi K., Chtourou H., Frikha M., Clark C.C.T., Glenn J.M., Bragazzi N., Souissi N. Optimizing Motor Learning: Difficulty Manipulation Combined with Feedback-Frequency Enhance Under-Time-Pressure Fine-Motor-Coordination Skill Acquisition and Retention. Journal of Motor Behavior. 2021: 1–13.