Cargando…

Use of an error-focused checklist to identify incompetence in lumbar puncture performances

CONTEXT: Checklists are commonly used in the assessment of procedural competence. However, on most checklists, high scores are often unable to rule out incompetence as the commission of a few serious procedural errors typically results in only a minimal reduction in performance score. We hypothesise...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ma, Irene W Y, Pugh, Debra, Mema, Briseida, Brindle, Mary E, Cooke, Lara, Stromer, Julie N
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4584502/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26383072
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/medu.12809
_version_ 1782392000684752896
author Ma, Irene W Y
Pugh, Debra
Mema, Briseida
Brindle, Mary E
Cooke, Lara
Stromer, Julie N
author_facet Ma, Irene W Y
Pugh, Debra
Mema, Briseida
Brindle, Mary E
Cooke, Lara
Stromer, Julie N
author_sort Ma, Irene W Y
collection PubMed
description CONTEXT: Checklists are commonly used in the assessment of procedural competence. However, on most checklists, high scores are often unable to rule out incompetence as the commission of a few serious procedural errors typically results in only a minimal reduction in performance score. We hypothesised that checklists constructed based on procedural errors may be better at identifying incompetence. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the efficacy of an error-focused checklist and a conventionally constructed checklist in identifying procedural incompetence. METHODS: We constructed a 15-item error-focused checklist for lumbar puncture (LP) based on input from 13 experts in four Canadian academic centres, using a modified Delphi approach, over three rounds of survey. Ratings of 18 video-recorded performances of LP on simulators using the error-focused tool were compared with ratings obtained using a published conventional 21-item checklist. Competence/incompetence decisions were based on global assessment. Diagnostic accuracy was estimated using the area under the curve (AUC) in receiver operating characteristic analyses. RESULTS: The accuracy of the conventional checklist in identifying incompetence was low (AUC 0.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.00–0.28) in comparison with that of the error-focused checklist (AUC 0.85, 95% CI 0.67–1.00). The internal consistency of the error-focused checklist was lower than that of the conventional checklist (α = 0.35 and α = 0.79, respectively). The inter-rater reliability of both tools was high (conventional checklist: intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 0.99, 95% CI 0.98–1.00; error-focused checklist: ICC 0.92, 95% CI 0.68–0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Despite higher internal consistency and inter-rater reliability, the conventional checklist was less accurate at identifying procedural incompetence. For assessments in which it is important to identify procedural incompetence, we recommend the use of an error-focused checklist.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4584502
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45845022015-10-02 Use of an error-focused checklist to identify incompetence in lumbar puncture performances Ma, Irene W Y Pugh, Debra Mema, Briseida Brindle, Mary E Cooke, Lara Stromer, Julie N Med Educ Assessing and Enhancing Competence CONTEXT: Checklists are commonly used in the assessment of procedural competence. However, on most checklists, high scores are often unable to rule out incompetence as the commission of a few serious procedural errors typically results in only a minimal reduction in performance score. We hypothesised that checklists constructed based on procedural errors may be better at identifying incompetence. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the efficacy of an error-focused checklist and a conventionally constructed checklist in identifying procedural incompetence. METHODS: We constructed a 15-item error-focused checklist for lumbar puncture (LP) based on input from 13 experts in four Canadian academic centres, using a modified Delphi approach, over three rounds of survey. Ratings of 18 video-recorded performances of LP on simulators using the error-focused tool were compared with ratings obtained using a published conventional 21-item checklist. Competence/incompetence decisions were based on global assessment. Diagnostic accuracy was estimated using the area under the curve (AUC) in receiver operating characteristic analyses. RESULTS: The accuracy of the conventional checklist in identifying incompetence was low (AUC 0.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.00–0.28) in comparison with that of the error-focused checklist (AUC 0.85, 95% CI 0.67–1.00). The internal consistency of the error-focused checklist was lower than that of the conventional checklist (α = 0.35 and α = 0.79, respectively). The inter-rater reliability of both tools was high (conventional checklist: intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 0.99, 95% CI 0.98–1.00; error-focused checklist: ICC 0.92, 95% CI 0.68–0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Despite higher internal consistency and inter-rater reliability, the conventional checklist was less accurate at identifying procedural incompetence. For assessments in which it is important to identify procedural incompetence, we recommend the use of an error-focused checklist. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 2015-10 2015-09-18 /pmc/articles/PMC4584502/ /pubmed/26383072 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/medu.12809 Text en © 2015 The Authors Medical Education Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Assessing and Enhancing Competence
Ma, Irene W Y
Pugh, Debra
Mema, Briseida
Brindle, Mary E
Cooke, Lara
Stromer, Julie N
Use of an error-focused checklist to identify incompetence in lumbar puncture performances
title Use of an error-focused checklist to identify incompetence in lumbar puncture performances
title_full Use of an error-focused checklist to identify incompetence in lumbar puncture performances
title_fullStr Use of an error-focused checklist to identify incompetence in lumbar puncture performances
title_full_unstemmed Use of an error-focused checklist to identify incompetence in lumbar puncture performances
title_short Use of an error-focused checklist to identify incompetence in lumbar puncture performances
title_sort use of an error-focused checklist to identify incompetence in lumbar puncture performances
topic Assessing and Enhancing Competence
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4584502/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26383072
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/medu.12809
work_keys_str_mv AT mairenewy useofanerrorfocusedchecklisttoidentifyincompetenceinlumbarpunctureperformances
AT pughdebra useofanerrorfocusedchecklisttoidentifyincompetenceinlumbarpunctureperformances
AT memabriseida useofanerrorfocusedchecklisttoidentifyincompetenceinlumbarpunctureperformances
AT brindlemarye useofanerrorfocusedchecklisttoidentifyincompetenceinlumbarpunctureperformances
AT cookelara useofanerrorfocusedchecklisttoidentifyincompetenceinlumbarpunctureperformances
AT stromerjulien useofanerrorfocusedchecklisttoidentifyincompetenceinlumbarpunctureperformances