Assessing competence in Chest Tube Insertion with the ACTION-tool: A Delphi study

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningfagfællebedømt

Standard

Assessing competence in Chest Tube Insertion with the ACTION-tool : A Delphi study. / The ACTION-group.

I: International Journal of Surgery, Bind 104, 106791, 2022.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningfagfællebedømt

Harvard

The ACTION-group 2022, 'Assessing competence in Chest Tube Insertion with the ACTION-tool: A Delphi study', International Journal of Surgery, bind 104, 106791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2022.106791

APA

The ACTION-group (2022). Assessing competence in Chest Tube Insertion with the ACTION-tool: A Delphi study. International Journal of Surgery, 104, [106791]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2022.106791

Vancouver

The ACTION-group. Assessing competence in Chest Tube Insertion with the ACTION-tool: A Delphi study. International Journal of Surgery. 2022;104. 106791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2022.106791

Author

The ACTION-group. / Assessing competence in Chest Tube Insertion with the ACTION-tool : A Delphi study. I: International Journal of Surgery. 2022 ; Bind 104.

Bibtex

@article{c500641fe84b443a9d91a8fe05942c86,
title = "Assessing competence in Chest Tube Insertion with the ACTION-tool: A Delphi study",
abstract = "Intro: Chest Tube Insertion (CTI) should be trained in simulated settings prior to patient contact. Feedback and certification is based on valid assessments, especially in simulation-based training. This study aimed to develop a novel assessment tool for CTI and to ensure content validity based on expert opinion collected through a structured Delphi study. Methods: A diverse European expert panel was invited to participate. In round 1, the experts provided at least five procedural steps and three errors involved in CTI. Round 2 evaluated the level of agreement with the inclusion of each item in the assessment tool on a five-point Likert scale. In round 3, experts rated their agreement on inclusion of the procedural step with its descriptive anchors. Consensus was reached when ≥80% of participants agreed on an item's inclusion. Results: Thirty-six of 105 (34%) invited surgeons (26/75, 35%), pulmonologists (8/23, 35%) and emergency physicians (2/7, 29%) participated. The overall response rate was 81% (29/36): 100% (36/36) in round 1, 83% (30/36) in round 2, and 97% (29/30) in round 3. Round 1 resulted in 23 steps and 44 errors after condensation and removal of duplicates. In round 2 consensus was achieved for 15 steps (65%) and 14 errors (32%). Nineteen steps were adapted into a rating scale with descriptive anchors and a list of 16 errors was presented to the panel. In round 3, experts reached consensus on the inclusion of 17 procedural steps (89%) with descriptive anchors and on all 16 errors. Conclusion: A multidisciplinary expert panel achieved consensus in the development of the ACTION (Assessment of Competence in Chest Tube Insertion) tool. This procedure-specific rating scale of 17 steps, supplemented with a checklist of 16 errors, requires further research to collect validity evidence.",
keywords = "Assessment tool, Chest tube insertion, Delphi process, Simulation-based medical education",
author = "{De Mol}, Leander and Liesbeth Desender and {Van Herzeele}, Isabelle and {Van de Voorde}, Patrick and Lars Konge and Wouter Willaert and {The ACTION-group}",
note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2022 IJS Publishing Group Ltd",
year = "2022",
doi = "10.1016/j.ijsu.2022.106791",
language = "English",
volume = "104",
journal = "International Journal of Surgery",
issn = "1743-9191",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessing competence in Chest Tube Insertion with the ACTION-tool

T2 - A Delphi study

AU - De Mol, Leander

AU - Desender, Liesbeth

AU - Van Herzeele, Isabelle

AU - Van de Voorde, Patrick

AU - Konge, Lars

AU - Willaert, Wouter

AU - The ACTION-group

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2022 IJS Publishing Group Ltd

PY - 2022

Y1 - 2022

N2 - Intro: Chest Tube Insertion (CTI) should be trained in simulated settings prior to patient contact. Feedback and certification is based on valid assessments, especially in simulation-based training. This study aimed to develop a novel assessment tool for CTI and to ensure content validity based on expert opinion collected through a structured Delphi study. Methods: A diverse European expert panel was invited to participate. In round 1, the experts provided at least five procedural steps and three errors involved in CTI. Round 2 evaluated the level of agreement with the inclusion of each item in the assessment tool on a five-point Likert scale. In round 3, experts rated their agreement on inclusion of the procedural step with its descriptive anchors. Consensus was reached when ≥80% of participants agreed on an item's inclusion. Results: Thirty-six of 105 (34%) invited surgeons (26/75, 35%), pulmonologists (8/23, 35%) and emergency physicians (2/7, 29%) participated. The overall response rate was 81% (29/36): 100% (36/36) in round 1, 83% (30/36) in round 2, and 97% (29/30) in round 3. Round 1 resulted in 23 steps and 44 errors after condensation and removal of duplicates. In round 2 consensus was achieved for 15 steps (65%) and 14 errors (32%). Nineteen steps were adapted into a rating scale with descriptive anchors and a list of 16 errors was presented to the panel. In round 3, experts reached consensus on the inclusion of 17 procedural steps (89%) with descriptive anchors and on all 16 errors. Conclusion: A multidisciplinary expert panel achieved consensus in the development of the ACTION (Assessment of Competence in Chest Tube Insertion) tool. This procedure-specific rating scale of 17 steps, supplemented with a checklist of 16 errors, requires further research to collect validity evidence.

AB - Intro: Chest Tube Insertion (CTI) should be trained in simulated settings prior to patient contact. Feedback and certification is based on valid assessments, especially in simulation-based training. This study aimed to develop a novel assessment tool for CTI and to ensure content validity based on expert opinion collected through a structured Delphi study. Methods: A diverse European expert panel was invited to participate. In round 1, the experts provided at least five procedural steps and three errors involved in CTI. Round 2 evaluated the level of agreement with the inclusion of each item in the assessment tool on a five-point Likert scale. In round 3, experts rated their agreement on inclusion of the procedural step with its descriptive anchors. Consensus was reached when ≥80% of participants agreed on an item's inclusion. Results: Thirty-six of 105 (34%) invited surgeons (26/75, 35%), pulmonologists (8/23, 35%) and emergency physicians (2/7, 29%) participated. The overall response rate was 81% (29/36): 100% (36/36) in round 1, 83% (30/36) in round 2, and 97% (29/30) in round 3. Round 1 resulted in 23 steps and 44 errors after condensation and removal of duplicates. In round 2 consensus was achieved for 15 steps (65%) and 14 errors (32%). Nineteen steps were adapted into a rating scale with descriptive anchors and a list of 16 errors was presented to the panel. In round 3, experts reached consensus on the inclusion of 17 procedural steps (89%) with descriptive anchors and on all 16 errors. Conclusion: A multidisciplinary expert panel achieved consensus in the development of the ACTION (Assessment of Competence in Chest Tube Insertion) tool. This procedure-specific rating scale of 17 steps, supplemented with a checklist of 16 errors, requires further research to collect validity evidence.

KW - Assessment tool

KW - Chest tube insertion

KW - Delphi process

KW - Simulation-based medical education

U2 - 10.1016/j.ijsu.2022.106791

DO - 10.1016/j.ijsu.2022.106791

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 35922003

AN - SCOPUS:85135803408

VL - 104

JO - International Journal of Surgery

JF - International Journal of Surgery

SN - 1743-9191

M1 - 106791

ER -

ID: 327284854