OPPE16: Development and Assessment of a Simulation Model of Focused and Ongoing Professional Practice Evaluations

Sponsor
Rush University Medical Center (Other)
Overall Status
Completed
CT.gov ID
NCT03229226
Collaborator
(none)
17
7

Study Details

Study Description

Brief Summary

Since 2007, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) has required evaluation of practicing attending physicians by management to ensure that procedural skills and medical care are meeting the accepted standards of care as assessed by each individual institution. This assessment is known as the ongoing professional practice evaluation (OPPE). There are several methods by which this can be accomplished, including through chart review of clinician practice and by verbally assessing knowledge of the steps required to do a particular procedure. However, for infrequently performed or complicated procedures, these methods may not allow objective evaluation on a regular basis. Simulation using task trainers or manikin models offers an alternative method of objective evaluation in a standardized setting.

The goal of this study is to develop two simulated scenarios to assess physician skill in relatively uncommon procedures and compare the data obtained against the verbal assessment and chart review model previously used at our institution. Two raters will assess each practitioner's verbal and simulated procedures. They will also assess globally their confidence that the physician is capable of performing the procedure safely and correctly based on the verbal or simulated trial.

The investigators anticipate that using a simulated experience for assessment will increase the ability of raters to assess proficiency for the purposes of an OPPE, specifically by increasing the number of critical procedural components that can be objectively evaluated. The investigators hypothesize that there will not be a strong relationship between the scores obtained on the verbal assessment and the scores obtained on the task trainer assessment. The investigators anticipate that there will be a portion of study participants that do not meet a minimum passing standard and may require additional deliberate practice and further testing.

Condition or Disease Intervention/Treatment Phase
  • Other: Verbal versus procedural assessment

Detailed Description

Physician training has developed over recent years to include simulation-based learning as a method of both formative and summative assessment. Simulation based medical education (SBME) with deliberate practice has been shown to be superior to traditional clinical education with respect to procedural skills in physicians in training (McGaghie,W.C. 2011), and a similar concept with Mastery Learning has shown to increase resident skill in lumbar puncture placement. In addition, it has been shown that Simulation Based Mastery Learning (SBML) in central line placement reduces hospital wide rates of central line associated bacterial infections.

When used in continuing medical education (CME), simulation has been shown to be feasible, and to increase clinician confidence in patient management. A recent study of nephrology fellows and attendings in practice showed that both groups scored similarly on a pre-test examination, and that all fellows who completed mastery learning subsequently passed the checklist assessment at the competency level and rated the training session highly.

In other work, simulation has been used for ongoing professional practice assessments (OPPE), for example in psychiatry using online simulated patients and assessments as a way of identifying a smaller number of attendings requiring focused assessment in person). Using electronically collected clinical data, anesthesia cases were reviewed for deviation from the standard of care on several key pieces of documentation common to many anesthesia procedures. This method of direct chart assessment for OPPE may be possible in anesthesia, a field where many cases have similarities in procedure, but would not work for a field such as Emergency Medicine, where the type and acuity of patient encounters varies greatly from day to day.

The ability of Simulation to present a standardized, specific procedural need offers an opportunity to assess Attending Emergency Physicians on a variety of critical procedures in a concise way. The investigators' research aims to present one possible approach to this assessment.

Study Design

Study Type:
Observational
Actual Enrollment :
17 participants
Observational Model:
Case-Only
Time Perspective:
Other
Official Title:
Development and Assessment of a Simulation Model of Focused and Ongoing Professional Practice Evaluations
Actual Study Start Date :
Oct 1, 2015
Actual Primary Completion Date :
May 1, 2016
Actual Study Completion Date :
May 1, 2016

Arms and Interventions

Arm Intervention/Treatment
2016 OPPE

All faculty participating in yearly ongoing professional Practice evaluation were eligible for enrollment

Other: Verbal versus procedural assessment
Faculty were assessed on both verbal and simulated performance of procedures.

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

  1. Performance on Procedural Checklist [Immediate]

    A 29-item procedural checklist for Central Line and a 21-item procedural checklist for Lumbar puncture will be used to assess performance by clinicians on Central Venous Catheter insertion and Lumbar Puncture performance.

Secondary Outcome Measures

  1. Acceptance of simulated training and assessment format [Immediate]

    A survey tool will be used to query participants on their preferred way of both practicing and being assessed on procedural skill. It will also assess whether participants feel inclined to complete a future simulated procedural training session.

Eligibility Criteria

Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study:
N/A and Older
Sexes Eligible for Study:
All
Accepts Healthy Volunteers:
Yes
Inclusion Criteria:
  • Emergency Medicine physician
Exclusion Criteria:
  • Not Emergency Medicine physician

Contacts and Locations

Locations

No locations specified.

Sponsors and Collaborators

  • Rush University Medical Center

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Sara M Hock, MD, Rush University Medical Center

Study Documents (Full-Text)

None provided.

More Information

Publications

Responsible Party:
Rush University Medical Center
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
NCT03229226
Other Study ID Numbers:
  • 15100805-IRB01-AM01
First Posted:
Jul 25, 2017
Last Update Posted:
Jul 28, 2017
Last Verified:
Jul 1, 2017
Individual Participant Data (IPD) Sharing Statement:
Undecided
Plan to Share IPD:
Undecided
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product:
No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product:
No
Keywords provided by Rush University Medical Center
Additional relevant MeSH terms:

Study Results

No Results Posted as of Jul 28, 2017