Fundamental Use of Surgical Energy (FUSE) certification: validation and predictors of success

Thomas N Robinson; Jaisa Olasky; Patricia Young; Liane S Feldman; Pascal R Fuchshuber; Stephanie B Jones; Amin Madani; Michael Brunt; Dean Mikami; Gretchen P Jackson; Jessica Mischna; Steven Schwaitzberg; Daniel B Jones

doi:10.1007/s00464-015-4334-3

Fundamental Use of Surgical Energy (FUSE) certification: validation and predictors of success

Surg Endosc. 2016 Mar;30(3):916-24. doi: 10.1007/s00464-015-4334-3. Epub 2015 Aug 15.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ Department of Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA. thomas.robinson@ucdenver.edu.
² Department of Surgery, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA.
³ Kryterion, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
⁴ Department of Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
⁵ Department of Surgery, Kaiser Permanente, Walnut Creek, CA, USA.
⁶ Department of Anesthesiology, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA.
⁷ Department of Surgery, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA.
⁸ Department of Surgery, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
⁹ Department of Surgery, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA.
¹⁰ Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

PMID: 26275533
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-015-4334-3

Abstract

Introduction: The Fundamental Use of Surgical Energy (FUSE) program includes a Web-based didactic curriculum and a high-stakes multiple-choice question examination with the goal to provide certification of knowledge on the safe use of surgical energy-based devices. The purpose of this study was (1) to set a passing score through a psychometrically sound process and (2) to determine what pretest factors predicted passing the FUSE examination.

Methods: Beta-testing of multiple-choice questions on 62 topics of importance to the safe use of surgical energy-based devices was performed. Eligible test takers were physicians with a minimum of 1 year of surgical training who were recruited by FUSE task force members. A pretest survey collected baseline information.

Results: A total of 227 individuals completed the FUSE beta-test, and 208 completed the pretest survey. The passing/cut score for the first test form of the FUSE multiple-choice examination was determined using the modified Angoff methodology and for the second test form was determined using a linear equating methodology. The overall passing rate across the two examination forms was 81.5%. Self-reported time studying the FUSE Web-based curriculum for a minimum of >2 h was associated with a passing examination score (p < 0.001). Performance was not different based on increased years of surgical practice (p = 0.363), self-reported expertise on one or more types of energy-based devices (p = 0.683), participation in the FUSE postgraduate course (p = 0.426), or having reviewed the FUSE manual (p = 0.428). Logistic regression found that studying the FUSE didactics for >2 h predicted a passing score (OR 3.61; 95% CI 1.44-9.05; p = 0.006) independent of the other baseline characteristics recorded.

Conclusion(s): The development of the FUSE examination, including the passing score, followed a psychometrically sound process. Self-reported time studying the FUSE curriculum predicted a passing score independent of other pretest characteristics such as years in practice and self-reported expertise.

Keywords: Education; Electrosurgery; Energy-based devices.

Publication types

Validation Study

MeSH terms

Certification*
Clinical Competence
Curriculum
Educational Measurement*
Electrosurgery / education*
Electrosurgery / instrumentation
Equipment Safety*
Humans
Psychometrics