Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Surg Endosc. 2016 Mar;30(3):832-44. doi: 10.1007/s00464-015-4285-8. Epub 2015 Jun 20.

A systematic review of performance assessment tools for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Author information

1
Steinberg-Bernstein Centre for Minimally Invasive Surgery and Innovation, McGill University Health Centre, 1650, Cedar Avenue, L9. 316, Montreal, QC, H3G 1A4, Canada. ywatanabe328@gmail.com.
2
Department of Gastroenterological Surgery II, Hokkaido University Graduate School of Medicine, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan. ywatanabe328@gmail.com.
3
Steinberg-Bernstein Centre for Minimally Invasive Surgery and Innovation, McGill University Health Centre, 1650, Cedar Avenue, L9. 316, Montreal, QC, H3G 1A4, Canada.
4
The Henry K.M. De Kuyper Education Centre, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada.
5
Steinberg-Bernstein Centre for Minimally Invasive Surgery and Innovation, McGill University Health Centre, 1650, Cedar Avenue, L9. 316, Montreal, QC, H3G 1A4, Canada. melina.vassiliou@mcgill.ca.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Multiple tools are available to assess clinical performance of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), but there are no guidelines on how best to implement and interpret them in educational settings. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify and critically appraise LC assessment tools and their measurement properties, in order to make recommendations for their implementation in surgical training.

METHODS:

A systematic search (1989-2013) was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and grey literature sources. Evidence for validity (content, response process, internal structure, relations to other variables, and consequences) and the conditions in which the evidence was obtained were evaluated.

RESULTS:

A total of 54 articles were included for qualitative synthesis. Fifteen technical skills and two non-technical skills assessment tools were identified. The 17 tools were used for either: recorded procedures (nine tools, 60%), direct observation (five tools, 30%), or both (three tools, 18%). Fourteen (82%) tools reported inter-rater reliability and one reported a Generalizability Theory coefficient. Nine (53%) had evidence for validity based on clinical experience and 11 (65%) compared scores to other assessments. Consequences of scores, educational impact, applications to residency training, and how raters were trained were not clearly reported. No studies mentioned cost.

CONCLUSIONS:

The most commonly reported validity evidence was inter-rater reliability and relationships to other known variables. Consequences of assessments and rater training were not clearly reported. These data and the evidence for validity should be taken into consideration when deciding how to select and implement a tool to assess performance of LC, and especially how to interpret the results.

KEYWORDS:

Cholecystectomy; Clinical competence; Laparoscopy; Reliability; Validity; Workplace-based assessment

PMID:
26092014
DOI:
10.1007/s00464-015-4285-8
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer
Loading ...
Support Center