Development and Validation of a Bronchoscopy Competence Assessment Tool in a Clinical Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Flexible bronchoscopy is performed by clinicians representing multiple medical specialties in a variety of settings. Given the increasing importance of competency-based assessment in postgraduate training, it is important that this skill be assessed within a competency-based framework using a valid measurement tool. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to design and validate a practical, competency-based bronchoscopy assessment tool that could be applied to trainees in a clinical setting. METHODS: Focus groups of expert physicians were formed in Ottawa, Canada representing adult medical specialties routinely engaged in preparing trainees to perform flexible bronchoscopy (respiratory medicine, critical care, thoracic surgery and anesthesia). The focus groups were charged with identifying themes and items relevant to the assessment of competency in bronchoscopy. By an iterative process, a bronchoscopy assessment tool was developed, the Ontario Bronchoscopy Assessment Tool (OBAT). The tool was evaluated by first using it to assess learners in a pilot study, refining it based on the results, and then testing the OBAT again in a validation study. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The initial tool consisted of 19 items, organized into the following groups: preprocedure planning, sedation and monitoring, technical skill, diagnostic skill, and post-procedure planning. The tool demonstrated high reliability (0.91) and discriminated junior from senior trainees. Based on the results of the pilot, the tool was simplified to a 12-item scale with three subscales: preprocedure planning, technical skills, and post-procedure planning. In the validation study, the assessment tool remained highly reliable (0.92) and discriminated junior from senior trainees with an estimated eight assessments per trainee. CONCLUSIONS: The OBAT demonstrates promise as a reliable tool to assess trainee competence for bronchoscopy in clinical settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".