Development of a Cast Application Simulator and Evaluation of Objective Measures of Performance
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Surgical simulation offers a low-risk learning environment with repetitive practice opportunities for orthopaedic residents. It is increasingly prevalent in many training programs, as acquisition of technical skills in the face of educational demands and reduced work hours becomes more challenging. In addition to surgical skills, orthopaedic residents must also learn the technique of cast application. Deficiencies in casting skill are risk factors for re-displacement of fractures and cast-specific complications. Formal educational models to instruct or to evaluate casting technique have not been well described or tested. The purposes of this study were to develop a cast application simulator and to validate a novel method of evaluating casting skill. METHODS: A module that simulates short arm cast application on a synthetic forearm model was developed. An Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill checklist was created with use of Delphi methodology involving nine content experts (five orthopaedic surgeons and four orthopaedic technologists). Nine participants (three medical students, three orthopaedic residents, two orthopaedic fellows, and one orthopaedic technologist) were used to evaluate the reliability and validity of the checklist. Nine de-identified videos of cast application were recorded and were utilized to test the newly developed Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill checklist and Modified Global Rating Scale for reliability and validity. Participants were grouped by training level (medical students, orthopaedic residents, and orthopaedic fellows or orthopaedic technologists) and were evaluated twice. RESULTS: Reliability was high as shown by intraclass correlation. The inter-rater reliability was 0.85 for the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill, 0.81 for the Modified Global Rating Scale performance, and 0.78 for the Modified Global Rating Scale final product; the intra-rater reliability was 0.88 for the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill, 0.85 for the Modified Global Rating Scale performance, and 0.81 for the Modified Global Rating Scale final product. The Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill checklist scores were 9.28 points for the medical students, 17.46 points for the orthopaedic residents, and 18.85 points for the orthopaedic fellows or orthopaedic technologists (p < 0.05, F = 6.32). The Modified Global Rating Scale performance and final product scores also reflected the level of training. Post hoc analysis showed a significant difference between the medical students and orthopaedic fellows or orthopaedic technologists for the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill checklist and Modified Global Rating Scale. CONCLUSIONS: This casting simulation model and evaluation instrument is a reliable assessment of casting skill in applying a short arm cast. However, given the inability to stratify all three groups on the basis of the level of training, further work is needed to establish construct validity.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».