Development and Validation of Metrics Lumbar Labor Epidural Catheter Placement
|The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details.|
|ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02179879|
Recruitment Status : Completed
First Posted : July 2, 2014
Last Update Posted : August 28, 2015
Procedural skills play an important role in anaesthetic expertise. More focused training and assessment of procedural skills will be needed in the future as training moves from an apprenticeship based training system to competency based assessment.
Currently various techniques exists to assess procedural skills of anaesthetist. For epidural catheter placement, task specific check list, global rating scales and cumulative sum techniques have been developed and validated. These techniques aim either for better qualitative outcome sacrificing objectivity or rely on self-reporting. A decrease in objectivity in turn hampers inter-rater reliability which is an essential component of a valid assessment model. Checklists type assessments force the developer to comprehensively characterize the procedure of interest and then validate the completed procedure characterization. This approach has been quantitatively shown to have higher assessment reliability levels compared to Likert-scale assessment.
The objective of the project is to develop and validate a comprehensive procedure characterization for labor epidural catheter placement. Another objective is to compare this new assessment tool with existing checklist and global rating scale for labor epidural to establish concurrent validity.5 A well-developed objective, validated procedure characterization serves as a master tool which has multiple applications. It helps to build a training programme for the procedure, allows providing metrics based feedback to trainees using simulator, helps to assess the performance of trainees and in future might be used as benchmark to allow competency based progression in the training.
|Condition or disease||Intervention/treatment|
|Labor Pain||Other: Video validation|
Study part 1 After ethics committee approval a group of experts (n = 3 ) in conventional lumbar epidural catheter placement will be selected (an expert is defined as one who has performed more than 500 labor epidurals in preceding 5 year period). During a number of face-to-face meetings experts will identify, characterize and define the procedure. They will analyze task and identify units of behavior to be measured which constitute in a step-wise fashion how the procedure is optimally performed and deviations from optimal procedure performance as described previously. After informed consent from the patient and the anaesthetist performing the procedure, 2 video recordings of experts performing epidural and 2 video recordings of novices (defined as one who has done less than 50 epidurals) performing epidural will be recorded for detailed review during metric development meetings.
Study part 2 The developed metrics will be subjected to assessments of construct validity (a set of procedures for evaluating a testing instrument based on a degree to which the test terms identify the quality, ability or trait it was designed to measure) and concurrent validity (the evaluation in which the relationship between the test scores and the scores on the another instrument purporting to measure the same construct are related). We will also evaluated the inter-rater reliability of the metrics using i) proportion of agreement between raters, ii) correlation strength (using Pearson's Correlation Coefficient) and iii) Coefficient Alpha. After informed consent,10 experts (who are not a part of committee developing the metrics) each performing one or more lumbar epidural catheter placements for labor and 10 novices each performing one or more lumbar epidural catheter placements for labor will be video recorded. Two experts will review the video recording and score the performance based on checklist based system developed and compare with likert-scale checklists/global rating scale system.
|Study Type :||Observational|
|Actual Enrollment :||20 participants|
|Official Title:||Protocol for Development and Validation of Metrics for Conventional Lumbar Epidural Catheter Placement for Labor Analgesia in Obstetric Patients|
|Study Start Date :||November 2013|
|Actual Primary Completion Date :||July 2014|
|Actual Study Completion Date :||July 2014|
Video validation group
This will include video taping of experts (defined as one who has performed more than 500 labor epidurals in preceding 5 year period) and novices (defined as one who has done less than 50 epidurals in preceeding 2 years) perfoming labor epidural
Other: Video validation
Video taping of anaesthetist (experts and novices) perfoming labor epidural.
- Construct validitiy [ Time Frame: WIthin 12 months post recording epidural procedure video ]a set of procedures for evaluating a testing instrument based on a degree to which the test terms identify the quality, ability or trait it was designed to measure.In our study we aim to see if the metrics developed will be able to differentiate between experts and novices in performing the porcedure
- Concurrrent validity [ Time Frame: within 12 months following completion of epidural video recording ]Concurrent validity is defined as a set of procedures for evaluating a testing instrument based on a degree to which the test terms identify the quality, ability or trait it was designed to measure.We aim to compare the interrater reliability of the metrics with compare with likert-scale checklists/global rating scale system developed already for the procedure.
- Interrater reliability [ Time Frame: 12 months from time of aquiring the epidural video ]We will evaluate the inter-rater reliability of the metrics using i) proportion of agreement between raters, ii) correlation strength (using Pearson's Correlation Coefficient) and iii) Coefficient Alpha
To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT02179879
|Cork University Hospital|
|Principal Investigator:||Karthikeyan Kallidaikurichi Srinivasan, FCARCSI,MD||Cork University Hospital|