Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Crit Care Med. 2018 Jun;46(6):e516-e522. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003073.

Simulation-Based Assessment of Critical Care "Front-Line" Providers.

Author information

1
Department of Anesthesiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO.
2
Division of Anesthesiology Critical Care Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO.
3
Wood Simulation Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO.
4
Foundation for Advancement of International Medical Education and Research, Philadelphia, PA.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

Develop a standardized simulation method to assess clinical skills of ICU providers.

DESIGN:

Simulation assessment.

SETTING:

Simulation laboratory.

SUBJECTS:

Residents, Critical Care Medicine fellows, acute care nurse practitioner students.

INTERVENTIONS:

Performance scoring in scenarios from multiple Critical Care Medicine competency domains.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:

Three-hundred eighty-four performances by 48 participants were scored using checklists (% correct) and holistic "global" ratings (1 [unprepared] to 9 [expert]). One-hundred eighty were scored by two raters. Mean checklist and global scores (± SD) ranged from 65.0% (± 16.3%) to 84.5% (± 17.3%) and 4.7 (± 1.4) to 7.2 (± 1.2). Checklist and global scores for Critical Care Medicine fellows and senior acute care nurse practitioner students (Experienced group, n = 26) were significantly higher than those for the Novice acute care nurse practitioner students (Novice group, n = 14) (75.6% ± 15.6% vs 68.8% ± 21.0% and 6.1 ± 1.6 vs 5.4 ± 1.5, respectively; p < 0.05). Residents (Intermediate group, n = 8) scored between the two (75.4% ± 18.3% and 5.7 ± 1.7). 38.5% of the Experienced group scored in the top quartile for mean global score, compared with 12.5% of the Intermediate and 7.1% of the Novice groups. Conversely, 50% of the Novice group scored in the lower quartile (< 5.3), compared with 37.5% of the Intermediate and 11.5% of the Experienced groups. Psychometric analyses yielded discrimination values greater than 0.3 for most scenarios and reliability for the eight-scenario assessments of 0.51 and 0.60, with interrater reliability of 0.71 and 0.75, for checklist and global scoring, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS:

The simulation assessments yielded reasonably reliable measures of Critical Care Medicine decision-making skills. Despite a wide range of performance, those with more ICU training and experience performed better, providing evidence to support the validity of the scores. Simulation-based assessments may ultimately prove useful to determine readiness to assume decision-making roles in the ICU.

PMID:
29521715
PMCID:
PMC5953781
[Available on 2019-06-01]
DOI:
10.1097/CCM.0000000000003073

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wolters Kluwer
Loading ...
Support Center