Metric-based simulation training to proficiency in medical education:- what it is and how to do it

Anthony G Gallagher, Anthony G Gallagher

Abstract

High profile error cases and reduced work hours have forced medicine to consider new approaches to training. Simulation-based learning for the acquisition and maintenance of skills has a growing role to play. Considerable advances have been made during the last 20 years on how simulation should be used optimally. Simulation is also more than a technology learning experience for supplanting the traditional approach of repeated practice. Research has shown that simulation works best when it is integrated into a curriculum. Learning is optimal when trainees receive metric-based feedback on their performance. Metrics should unambiguously characterize important aspects of procedure or skill performance. They are developed from a task analysis of the procedure or skills to be learned. The outcome of the task analysis should also shape how the simulation looks and behaves. Metric-based performance characterization can be used to establish a benchmark (i.e., a level of proficiency) which trainees must demonstrate before training progression. This approach ensures a more homogeneous skill-set in graduating trainees and can be applied to any level of training. Prospective, randomized and blinded clinical studies have shown that trainees who acquired their skills to a level of proficiency on a simulator in the skills laboratory perform significantly better in vivo in comparison to their traditionally trained colleagues. The Food and Drug Administration in the USA and the Department of Health in the UK have candidly indicated that they see an emergent and fundamental role for simulation-based training. Although a simulation-based approach to medical education and training may be conceptually and intellectually appealing it represents a paradigm shift in how doctors are educated and trained.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1
Dreyfus & Dreyfus Figure
Fig 2a
Fig 2a
the Wijen method of competency assessment
Fig 2b
Fig 2b
Competency Vs Proficiency
Fig 3
Fig 3
The Proficiency-based progression method

References

    1. Seymour NE, Gallagher AG, Roman SA, O'Brien MK, Bansal VK, Andersen DK, et al. Virtual reality training improves operating room performance: results of a randomized, double-blinded study. Ann Surg. 2002;236((4)):458–63.
    1. Seymour NE. VR to OR: a review of the evidence that virtual reality simulation improves operating room performance. World J Surg. 2008;32((2)):182–8.
    1. Jordan JA, Gallagher AG, McGuigan J, McGlade K, McClure N. A comparison between randomly alternating imaging, normal laparoscopic imaging, and virtual reality training in laparoscopic psychomotor skill acquisition. Am J Surg. 2000;180((3)):208–11.
    1. Jordan JA, Gallagher AG, McGuigan J, McClure N. Virtual reality training leads to faster adaptation to the novel psychomotor restrictions encountered by laparoscopic surgeons. SurgEndosc. 2001;15((10)):1080–4.
    1. Taffinder N, Sutton C, Fishwick R, McManus I, Darzi A. Validation of virtual reality to teach and assess psychomotor skills in laparoscopic surgery: results from randomised controlled studies using the MIST VR laparoscopic simulator. Stud Health Technol Inform. 1998;50:124–30.
    1. Gallagher AG, McClure N, McGuigan J, Crothers I, Browning J. Virtual reality training in laparoscopic surgery: a preliminary assessment of minimally invasive surgical trainer virtual reality (MISTVR) Endoscopy. 1999;31((4)):310–3.
    1. Gallagher AG, Hughes C, Reinhardt-Rutland AH, McGuigan J, McClure N. A case-control comparison of traditional and virtual-reality training in laparoscopic psychomotor performance. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2000;9((5)):347–52.
    1. Salas E, Bowers CA, Rhodenizer L. It is not how much you have but how you use it: Toward a rational use of simulation to support aviation training. Int JAviat Psychol. 1998;8((3)):197–208.
    1. Cooper JB, Taqueti VR. A brief history of the development of mannequin simulators for clinical education and training. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004;(13(suppl 1)):i11–i8. Erratum in Qual Saf Health Care 2005.
    1. Smith R. All changed changed utterly. BrMedJ. 1998;316((7149)):1917–8.
    1. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS. To err is human. Building a safer health system. Volume 6. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 2000. pp. 196–7.
    1. Beall DP. The ACGME institutional requirements: what residents need to know. JAMA. 1999;281((24)):2352.
    1. Lowry J, Cripps J. Results of the online EWTD trainee survey. BullR Coll Surg Engl. 2005;87((3)):86–7.
    1. The Southern Surgeons Club. Aprospective analysis of 1518 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. New Engl JMed. 1991;324((16)):1073–8.
    1. Gallagher AG, O'Sullivan GC. Fundamentals of surgical simulation; principles and practice. London: Springer Verlag; 2011.
    1. Satava RM. Virtual reality surgical simulator. The first steps. Surg Endosc. 1993;7((3)):203–5.
    1. Healy GB. The college should be instrumental in adapting simulators to education. Bull Am Coll Surg. 2002;87((11)):10–1.
    1. Pellegrini CA, Sachdeva AK, Johnson KA. Accreditation of education institutes by the American College of Surgeons: anew program following an old tradition. Bull Am Coll Surg. 2006;91((3)):8–2.
    1. Havighurst LC, Fields LE, Fields CL. High versus low fidelity simulations: does the type of format affect candidates performance or perceptions. Proceedings from the 27th annual IPMAAC conference on personnel assessment, 2003 June 22-25. Baltimore, USA: International Personnel Assessment Council [IPAC]; 2003. Available online from: . Last accessed August 2012.
    1. Motowidlo SJ, Dunnette MD, Carter GW. An alternative selection procedure: The low-fidelity simulation. JAppl Psychol. 1990;75(6):640–7.
    1. Gewirtz P. On” I Know It When I See It”. Yale Law J. 1996;105((4)):1023–47.
    1. Andersen DK. How can educators use simulation applications to teach and assess surgical judgment? AcadMed. 2012;87((7)):934–41.
    1. Dreyfus HL, Dreyfus SE. Athanasiout.Mind over machine: the power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. New York: Free Press; 1986.
    1. Seymour NE, Gallagher AG, Roman S A, O'Brien MK, Andersen DK, Satava RM. Analysis of errors in laparoscopic surgical procedures. Surg Endosc. 2004;18((4)):592–5.
    1. McClusky DA, Gallagher AG, Ritter EM, Lederman AB, Van Sickle MB, Smith CD. Virtual reality training improves junior residents' operating room performance: Results of a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study of the complete laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Am CollSurg. 2004;199((suppl3)):73.
    1. Van Sickle K, Smith B, McClusky DA, Baghai M, Smith CD, Gallagher AG. Evaluation of atensiometer to provide objective feedback in knot- tying performance. Am Surg. 2005;71((12)):1018–23.
    1. Van Sickle KR, Gallagher AG, Smith CD. The effect of escalating feedback on the acquisition of psychomotor skills for laparoscopy. Surg Endosc. 2007;21((2)):220–4.
    1. Van Sickle K, Ritter EM, Baghai M, et al. Prospective, randomized, double-blindtrial of curriculum-based training for intracorporeal suturing and knot tying. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;207((4)):560–8.
    1. Neary PC, Boyle E, Delaney CP, Senagore AJ, Keane FB, Gallagher AG. Construct validation of a novel hybrid virtual-reality simulator for training and assessing laparoscopic colectomy; results from the first course for experienced senior laparoscopic surgeons. Surg Endosc. 2008 Oct;22((10)):2301–9.
    1. Nicholson WJ, Cates CU, Patel AD, Niazi K, Palmer S, Helmy T, et al. Face and content validation of virtual reality simulation for carotid angiography: results from the first 100 physicians attending the Emory NeuroAnatomy Carotid Training (ENACT) program. Simul Healthc. 2006;1((3)):147–50.
    1. Gallagher AG, Neary P, Gillen P, Lane B, Whelan A, Tanner WA, et al. Novel method for assessment and selection of trainees for higher surgical training in general surgery. Aust NZJ Surg. 2008;78((4)):282–90.
    1. Gallagher AG, O'Sullivan GC, Leonard G, Bunting BP. KJ. M. OSATS and checklist scales reliability compared for high stakes assessments. Aust N Z J Press
    1. Reason J. Human error. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press; 1990.
    1. Gallagher AG, Ritter EM, Champion H, Higgins G, Fried MP, Moses G. Virtual reality simulation for the operating room: proficiency-based training as a paradigm shift in surgical skills training. Ann Surg. 2005 Feb;241((2)):364–72.
    1. Cusimano MD. Standard setting in medical education. Acad Med. 1996;71((suppl10)):S112.
    1. Ahlberg G, Enochsson L, Gallagher AG, Hedman L, Hogman C, McCluskey, et al. Proficiency-based virtual reality training significantly reduces the error rate for residents during their first 10 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. Amer J Surg. 2007;193((6)):797–804.
    1. Ericsson KA, Krampe RT, Tesch-Römer C. Therole of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. PsycholRev. 1993;100((3)):363–406.
    1. Gallagher AG, Cates CU. Approval of virtual reality training for carotid stenting: what this means for procedural-based medicine. JAMA. 2004;292((24)):3024–6.
    1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Draft guidance for industry and food and drug administration staff. Applying human factors and usability engineering to optimize medical device design. Silver Spring, MD 20993: U.S Department of Health and Human Services. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health; 2011. Available online from: . Last accessed August 2012.
    1. Department of Health. Framework for technology enhanced learning. Best practice guidance. London: Department of Health; 2011. Available online from: . Last accessed August 2012.

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する