HIGHLIGHTS
- •HPB Fellows are assessed during an annual skills practicum in HPB US.
- •Assessment tools for open and laparoscopic HPB US have been developed.
- •A panel of expert faculty established Mastery Entrustment standards.
- •Entrustment standards were applied to a sample of HPB surgery fellows.
- •A sample of graduating HPB fellows did not meet entrustment standards for HPB US.
Abstract
Background
A formative hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) ultrasound (US) skills practicum is offered
annually to graduating HPB fellows, using entrustment assessments for open (IOUS)
and laparoscopic (LAPUS) US. It is hypothesized that validity evidence will support
the use of these assessments to determine if graduating fellows are well prepared
to perform HPB US independently.
Methods
Expert faculty were surveyed to set Mastery Entrustment standards for fellow performance.
Standards were applied to fellow performances during two annual US skills practicums.
Results
11 faculty questionnaires were included. Mean Entrustment cut scores across all items
were 4.9/5.0 and 4.8/5.0 and Global Entrustment cut scores were 5.0/5.0 and 4.8/5.0
for IOUS and LAPUS, respectively. 78.5% (29/37) fellows agreed to have their de-identified
data evaluated. Mean fellow Entrustments (across all skills) were 4.1 (SD 0.6; 2.6–4.9)
and 3.9 (SD 0.7; 2.7–5), while the Global Entrustments were 3.6 (SD 0.8; 2–5) and
3.5 (SD 1.0; 2–5) for IOUS and LAPUS, respectively.
Conclusions
Two cohorts of graduating HPB fellows are not meeting Mastery Standards for HPB US
performance determined by a panel of expert faculty.
Keywords
JEL classification
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to The American Journal of SurgeryAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- AHPBA Certification Requirement: HPB Surgical Fellowship Appendix.2019 (Version: April, 2019))https://www.ahpba.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/HPB-Certification-Requirements_-Incoming-Fellows-2019.pdf(Accessed)Date accessed: May 17, 2021
- Assessment in mastery learning settings.in: Yudkowsky R. Park Y.S. Downing S.M. Assessment in Health Professions Education. second ed. Routledge, New York2019: 272-286https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315166902-18
- Setting mastery standards in hepato-pancreato-biliary surgical ultrasound.HPB (Oxford). 2020; 1 (22) ([abstract only]) (Accessed): S33https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpb.2020.04.837https://www.hpbonline.org/article/S1365-182X(20)30964-3/fulltextDate accessed: May 17, 2021
- Liver ultrasound: a key procedure in the surgeon's toolbox.J Surg Oncol. 2020; 122: 61-69https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.25908
- The ottawa surgical competency operating room evaluation (O-score): a tool to assess surgical competence.Acad Med. 2012; 87: 1401-1407https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0b013e3182677805
- American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards For Education And Psychological Testing.American Educational Research Association, Washington DC2014: 11
- Validity.in: Linn R.L. Educational Measurement. third ed. American Council on Education and Macmillan, New York1989: 13-103
- Validity and quality.in: Yudkowsky R. Park Y.S. Downing S.M. Assessment in Health Professions Education. second ed. Routledge, New York2019: 17-32https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315166902-2
- Setting mastery standards.Acad Med. 2015; 90: 1495-1500https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000000887
- Procedures for establishing defensible absolute passing scores on performance examinations in health professions education.Teach Learn Med. 2006; 18: 50-57https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328015tlm1801_11
- Making the case for Mastery Learning assessments: key issues in validation and justification.Acad Med. 2015; 90: 1445-1450https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000000860
- Standard setting.in: Yudkowsky R. Park Y.S. Downing S.M. Assessment in Health Professions Education. second ed. Routledge, New York2019: 86-105https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315166902-6
- Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology.Psychological Assessment. 1994; 6: 284-290https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284
- A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research.J Chiropr Med. 2016; 15: 155-163https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
- A patient safety approach to setting pass/fail standards for basic procedural skills checklists.Simulat Healthc J Soc Med Simulat. 2014; 9: 277-282https://doi.org/10.1097/sih.0000000000000044
- A technique for the measurement of attitudes.Arch Psychol. 1932; 22: 5-55
- Nuts and bolts of entrustable professional activities.J Grad Med Educ. 2013; 5: 157-158https://doi.org/10.4300/jgme-d-12-00380.1
- Mastery learning, milestones, and entrustable professional activities.in: McGaghie W.C. Barsuk J.H. Wayne D.B. Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation: Mastery Learning in Health Professions Education. Springer Nature Switzerland AG, New York2020: 311-330https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34811-3_17
- Competency-based postgraduate training: can we bridge the gap between theory and clinical practice?.Acad Med. 2007; 82: 542-547https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0b013e31805559c7
- Attending physician adherence to a 29-component central venous catheter bundle checklist during simulated procedures.Crit Care Med. 2016; 44: 1871-1881https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0000000000001831
- Surgical skill and complication rates after bariatric surgery.NEJM. 2013; 369: 1434-1442https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmrp.2014.09.003
- Booklet of information surgery 2020-2021.https://www.absurgery.org/xfer/BookletofInfo-Surgery.pdf(Accessed)Date accessed: August 2, 2021
Article info
Publication history
Published online: August 11, 2021
Accepted:
August 9,
2021
Received in revised form:
August 4,
2021
Received:
May 21,
2021
Identification
Copyright
© 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
