Validation Study on Intraoperative Video Recording as an Objective Assessment Tool in ENT Surgery

Objectives: (1) Determine the construct validity and the reliability of video assessment scoring of myringotomy and grommet insertion. (2) Measure the performance (by rating) of participants compared to operative time. Methods: Study design was a single blinded (raters) video assessment, conducted i...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Otolaryngology-head and neck surgery 2014-09, Vol.151 (1_suppl), p.P49-P50
Hauptverfasser: Bowles, Philippe F., Das, Prodip, Young, John P. F., Saunders, Nicholas, Harries, Meredydd L., Fleming, Jason
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Objectives: (1) Determine the construct validity and the reliability of video assessment scoring of myringotomy and grommet insertion. (2) Measure the performance (by rating) of participants compared to operative time. Methods: Study design was a single blinded (raters) video assessment, conducted in a tertiary care university hospital August to October 2013. Participants were consultant and trainee (Specialty Registrar [StR] and Core Trainee [CT]) ear, nose, and throat (ENT) surgeons performing a total of 30 consecutive index procedures. Two raters at ENT Consultant level with a subspecialty interest in otology who did not take part in the study were invited to score results. Results: A strong correlation between scores by the 2 blinded raters was demonstrated (rho = 0.748; P < .001). Median scores (/45) for each group were: CT 25.5 (interquartile range [IQR] 21.13-31.25), SpR 33 (IQR 24.88-35), and consultant 40 (IQR 35.38-42.63). Kruskal-Wallis test analysis showed statistically significant mean rank scores between the 3 different levels of experience (H = 12.77, P = .002). Multiple group comparisons indicated a significant difference between CT and consultant groups (P < .001) and StR and consultant groups (P = .007). Analysis of the time taken between the experience groups demonstrated a difference (H = 8.689, P = .013), although individual intergroup comparisons indicated this was only significant between CT and consultant groups (P = .004). There was a significant negative correlation (rho = –0.842; P < .001) between time taken for procedure and score achieved. Conclusions: Video assessment of this procedure may represent a valid, feasible tool for use in summative and formative assessments of trainee ENT surgeons. Remote scoring of assessment procedures minimizes bias and enables blinding of raters.
ISSN:0194-5998
1097-6817
DOI:10.1177/0194599814541627a67