Survey of Current Surgical Competency Assessment and a Possible Role for Virtual Reality Simulation.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: To survey Ophthalmology Residency program directors and chairmen regarding current surgical competency assessment trends and opinions on the role of virtual reality surgical simulation. METHODS: A 23 question survey was sent to the membership of the Association of University Professors of Ophthalmology (AUPO), which includes residency program directors and chairmen from 120 ophthalmology training programs in the United States and Canada. Questions encompassed current surgical assessment methods for residents, the respondent’s virtual reality experience, and the respondent’s opinions on virtual reality simulation RESULTS: A total of 106 responses (44.2%) from 83 different residency programs (69.2%) were received. 86.7% of programs had functional wetlabs with 87.7% of respondents believing that wetlabs were beneficial. Experience with virtual reality simulation was limited to only having heard of the technology in 76.4% of respondents, 59.4% have seen a VR simulator, 34.9% have hands-on experience with VR simulator, and 2.8% use VR simulation in training. Those with higher familiarity scores had a stepwise more favorable opinion of VR with regards to patient safety, surgical curriculum, and awareness/acceptance by residents and faculty. CONCLUSIONS The community of ophthalmology educators is grappling with the issue of ACGME-mandated competency-based assessment in general and surgical competency appraisal tools in particular. The selection of assessment methods varies widely from program to program. Two different programs may use a similar number of assessment methods but completely different methods of assessment. This lack of uniformity can be corrected by implementation of objective, efficacious methods that are used across the board and serve as a standard of assessment among residency programs. VR is one such possibility of standardized assessment. While VR is considered relatively advanced technology, it is a rather new tool and its efficacy as a method of assessment has not been adequately gauged. Furthermore, awareness of VR is low as is knowledge regarding its possible incorporation into surgical curriculum. Perception of VR, familiarity with usage of VR, obstacles faced in incorporating VR into curriculum, and the issue of whether or not it is even a valid assessment tool were addressed in this study. The results of this survey support virtual reality as a means of delivering a surgical curriculum that is safe for the patient and accepted by residents and faculty. Conversely, cost is viewed as a detractor from full implementation. The acquisition of surgical skills and transferability of surgical skills gained through virtual reality simulation has not been substantiated according to the opinions of those surveyed. The results of the survey shed some light on the residency programs’ current opinions of VR, but more definitive research is needed to prove the benefit of virtual reality in the operating room.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».