The Welsh Institute for Minimal Access Therapy colonoscopy suitcase has construct and concurrent validity for colonoscopic polypectomy skills training: a prospective, cross-sectional study

Background The Welsh Institute for Minimal Access Therapy (WIMAT) colonoscopy suitcase is an ex vivo porcine simulator for polypectomy training. Objective To establish whether this model has construct and concurrent validity. Design Prospective, cross-sectional study. Setting Endoscopic training cen...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Gastrointestinal endoscopy 2014-03, Vol.79 (3), p.490-497
Hauptverfasser: Ansell, James, MBBCh, Hurley, Joanna J., MBBCh, Horwood, James, MS, Rizan, Chantelle, BSc, Arnaoutakis, Konstantinos, MPhil, Goddard, Stuart, PGCE, Warren, Neil, PhD, Torkington, Jared, MS
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background The Welsh Institute for Minimal Access Therapy (WIMAT) colonoscopy suitcase is an ex vivo porcine simulator for polypectomy training. Objective To establish whether this model has construct and concurrent validity. Design Prospective, cross-sectional study. Setting Endoscopic training center. Participants Twenty novice (N), 20 intermediate (I), 20 advanced (Ad), and 20 expert (E) colonoscopists. Intervention A simulated polypectomy task aimed at removing 2 polyps; A (simple), B (complex). Main Outcome Measurements Two accredited colonoscopists, blinded to group allocation, scored performances according to Direct Observation of Polypectomy Skills (DOPyS) assessment parameters. Group performances were compared. Real-life DOPyS scores were correlated to simulator DOPyS results. Results Median overall DOPyS scores for novices were 1.00 (1.00-1.87) for A and 0.50 (0.00-1.00) for B (A vs B; P  < .01). Intermediates scored 2.50 (2.00-2.88) for A and 2.00 (1.13-2.50) for B (A vs B; P  = .03). The advanced group scored 3.00 (2.50-3.50) for A and 2.50 (2.00-3.00) for B (A vs B; P  = .01). Experts scored 3.00 (3.00-3.88) for A and 3.00 (2.50-3.50) for B (A vs B; P  = .47). Intergroup comparisons for A were, N vs I; P  < .01, N vs Ad; P  
ISSN:0016-5107
1097-6779
DOI:10.1016/j.gie.2013.08.003