Search

Introduction The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) has developed milestones including procedural skills under the core competency of patient care. Progress in training is expected to be monitored by residency programs. To our knowledge, there exists no tool to evaluate pediatric resident laceration repair performance. Methods The Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills was adapted to evaluate resident laceration repair performance using two components: a global rating scale (GRS) and a checklist. Pediatric and family medicine residents at a tertiary care children's hospital were filmed performing a simulated laceration repair. Videos were evaluated by at least five physicians trained in laceration repair. Concordance correlation coefficients (CCC) were calculated for the GRS and checklist scores. Scores for each resident were compared across levels of training and procedural experience. Spearman's rank order correlations were calculated to compare the checklist and GRS. Results Thirty residents were filmed performing laceration repair procedures. The CCC showed fair concordance across reviewers for the checklist (0.55, 95% CI: 0.38-0.69) and the GRS (0.53, 95% CI: 0.36-0.67). There was no significant difference in scores by self-reported experience or training level. There was correlation between the median GRS and checklist scores (Spearman ρ = 0.730, p < .001). Conclusions A novel tool to evaluate resident laceration repair performance in a pediatric emergency department showed fair agreement across reviewers. The study tool is not precise enough for summative evaluation; however, it can be used to distinguish between trainees who have and have not attained competence in laceration repair for formative feedback.

To measure performance, fidelity and preference of two emergency umbilical vessel catheter (eUVC) simulation models.A randomized crossover trial of senior pediatric residents randomized to place an eUVC first using a real cord (RC) or simulated cord (SC), and then place an eUVC using the other model. The eUVC placement times were recorded and analyzed. Subjects rated physical and functional fidelity and preference for each model.The eUVC placement time (mean±s.d. s) was slower in RC vs SC (153 s ±71 vs 88 s ±35, P0.001), however, there was no difference in eUVC placement time in the group that worked with SC first (115 s ±36 vs 97 s ±35, P=0.161). Physical and functional fidelity of RC were rated higher than SC (P0.001), and RC were preferred.RC has higher physical and functional fidelity, and are preferred for training by pediatric residents, despite longer placement times.