Randomized trial to examine procedure-to-procedure transfer in laparoscopic simulator training.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic simulation has become a standard component of surgical training, but there is limited knowledge regarding skills transfer between procedural tasks. The objective was to investigate the specificity of procedural simulator training. METHODS: This was randomized single-centre educational superiority trial. Surgical novices practised basic skills on a laparoscopic virtual reality simulator. On reaching proficiency, participants were randomized to proficiency-based training. The intervention group practised two procedures on the simulator (appendicectomy followed by salpingectomy), whereas the control group trained on only one procedure (salpingectomy). The main outcomes were number of repetitions and time to proficiency for the second procedure. RESULTS: Ninety-six participants were randomized, of whom 74 per cent were women, with a median age of 26 years. The intervention group needed significantly fewer attempts than the control group to reach proficiency in the second procedure: median (i.q.r.) 22 (17-34) versus 32 (26-41) attempts, which corresponded to 24·1 per cent fewer attempts as assessed by multivariable analysis (P = 0·004). The intervention group required significantly less time than the control group to reach proficiency: median (i.q.r.) 88 (63-127) versus 131 (101-153) min respectively, corresponding to a difference of 31·1 min as assessed by multivariable analysis (P = 0·001). CONCLUSION: Practising two procedures, compared with only one, reduced the number of attempts and time to reach proficiency in the second procedure. Skills transfer is seen between two tasks in laparoscopic simulator training; however, task specificity is still present when practising procedures. REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02069951 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Validity of a cross-specialty test in basic laparoscopic techniques (TABLT).

BACKGROUND: Box trainer systems have been developed that include advanced skills such as suturing. There is still a need for a portable, cheap training and testing system for basic laparoscopic techniques that can be used across different specialties before performing supervised surgery on patients. The aim of this study was to establish validity evidence for the Training and Assessment of Basic Laparoscopic Techniques (TABLT) test, a tablet-based training system. METHODS: Laparoscopic surgeons and trainees were recruited from departments of general surgery, gynaecology and urology. Participants included novice, intermediate and experienced surgeons. All participants performed the TABLT test. Performance scores were calculated based on time taken and errors made. Evidence of validity was explored using a contemporary framework of validity. RESULTS: Some 60 individuals participated. The TABLT was shown to be reliable, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.99 (P < 0.001). ANOVA showed a difference between the groups with different level of experience (P < 0.001). The Bonferroni correction was used to confirm this finding. A Pearson's r value of 0.73 (P < 0.001) signified a good positive correlation between the level of laparoscopic experience and performance score. A reasonable pass-fail standard was established using contrasting groups methods. CONCLUSION: TABLT can be used for the assessment of basic laparoscopic skills and can help novice surgical trainees in different specialties gain basic laparoscopic competencies.

Development of knowledge tests for multi-disciplinary emergency training: a review and an example.

BACKGROUND: The literature is sparse on written test development in a post-graduate multi-disciplinary setting. Developing and evaluating knowledge tests for use in multi-disciplinary post-graduate training is challenging. The objective of this study was to describe the process of developing and evaluating a multiple-choice question (MCQ) test for use in a multi-disciplinary training program in obstetric-anesthesia emergencies. METHODS: A multi-disciplinary working committee with 12 members representing six professional healthcare groups and another 28 participants were involved. Recurrent revisions of the MCQ items were undertaken followed by a statistical analysis. The MCQ items were developed stepwise, including decisions on aims and content, followed by testing for face and content validity, construct validity, item-total correlation, and reliability. RESULTS: To obtain acceptable content validity, 40 out of originally 50 items were included in the final MCQ test. The MCQ test was able to distinguish between levels of competence, and good construct validity was indicated by a significant difference in the mean score between consultants and first-year trainees, as well as between first-year trainees and medical and midwifery students. Evaluation of the item-total correlation analysis in the 40 items set revealed that 11 items needed re-evaluation, four of which addressed content issues in local clinical guidelines. A Cronbach's alpha of 0.83 for reliability was found, which is acceptable. CONCLUSION: Content and construct validity and reliability were acceptable. The presented template for the development of this MCQ test could be useful to others when developing knowledge tests and may enhance the overall quality of test development.