Anne-Lise D. D'Angelo

The use of error analysis to assess resident performance

BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to assess validity of a human factors error assessment method for evaluating resident performance during a simulated operative procedure. METHODS Seven postgraduate year 4-5 residents had 30 minutes to complete a simulated laparoscopic ventral hernia (LVH) repair on day 1 of a national, advanced laparoscopic course. Faculty provided immediate feedback on operative errors and residents participated in a final product analysis of their repairs. Residents then received didactic and hands-on training regarding several advanced laparoscopic procedures during a lecture session and animate lab. On day 2, residents performed a nonequivalent LVH repair using a simulator. Three investigators reviewed and coded videos of the repairs using previously developed human error classification systems. RESULTS Residents committed 121 total errors on day 1 compared with 146 on day 2. One of 7 residents successfully completed the LVH repair on day 1 compared with all 7 residents on day 2 (P = .001). The majority of errors (85%) committed on day 2 were technical and occurred during the last 2 steps of the procedure. There were significant differences in error type (P ≤ .001) and level (P = .019) from day 1 to day 2. The proportion of omission errors decreased from day 1 (33%) to day 2 (14%). In addition, there were more technical and commission errors on day 2. CONCLUSION The error assessment tool was successful in categorizing performance errors, supporting known-groups validity evidence. Evaluating resident performance through error classification has great potential in facilitating our understanding of operative readiness.

Use of simulators to explore specialty recommendation for a palpable breast mass

BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to evaluate recommendation patterns of different specialties for the work-up of a palpable breast mass using simulated scenarios and clinical breast examination models. METHODS Study participants were a convenience sample of physicians (n = 318) attending annual surgical, family practice, and obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) conferences. Two different silicone-based breast models (superficial mass vs chest wall mass) were used to test clinical breast examination skills and recommendation patterns (imaging, tissue sampling, and follow-up). RESULTS Participants were more likely to recommend mammography (P < .001) and core biopsy (P < .0001) and less likely to recommend needle aspiration (P < .043) and 1-month follow-up (P < .001) for the chest wall mass compared with the superficial mass. Family practitioners were less likely to recommend ultrasound (P < .001) and obstetrics and gynecologists were less likely to recommend mammogram (P < .006) across models. Surgeons were more likely to recommend core biopsy and less likely to recommend needle aspiration across models (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS Recommendation patterns differed across the 2 models in line with existing practice guidelines. Additionally, differences in practice patterns between primary care and specialty providers may represent varying clinician capabilities, healthcare resources, and individual preferences. Our work shows that simulation may be used to track adherence to practice guidelines for breast masses.