Global versus task-specific postoperative feedback in surgical procedure learning

Tahmina Nazari; Katerina Bogomolova; Marlike Ridderbos; Mary E.W. Dankbaar; Jeroen J.G. van Merriënboer; Johan F. Lange; Theo Wiggers; Jos A. van der Hage

doi:10.1016/j.surg.2020.12.038

Global versus task-specific postoperative feedback in surgical procedure learning

Tahmina Nazari^*, Katerina Bogomolova, Marlike Ridderbos, Mary E.W. Dankbaar, Jeroen J.G. van Merriënboer, Johan F. Lange, Theo Wiggers, Jos A. van der Hage

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)

42 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background: Task-specific checklists and global rating scales are both recommended assessment tools to provide constructive feedback on surgical performance. This study evaluated the most effective feedback tool by comparing the effects of the Observational Clinical Human Reliability Analysis (OCHRA) and the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) on surgical performance in relation to the visual-spatial ability of the learners. Methods: In a randomized controlled trial, medical students were allocated to either the OCHRA (n = 25) or OSATS (n = 25) feedback group. Visual-spatial ability was measured by a Mental Rotation Test. Participants performed an open inguinal hernia repair procedure on a simulation model twice. Feedback was provided after the first procedure. Improvement in performance was evaluated blindly using a global rating scale (performance score) and hand-motion analysis (time and path length). Results: Mean improvement in performance score was not significantly different between the OCHRA and OSATS feedback groups (P = .100). However, mean improvement in time (371.0 ± 223.4 vs 274.6 ± 341.6; P = .027) and path length (53.5 ± 42.4 vs 34.7 ± 39.0; P = .046) was significantly greater in the OCHRA feedback group. When stratified by mental rotation test scores, the greater improvement in time (P = .032) and path length (P = .053) was observed only among individuals with low visual-spatial abilities. Conclusion: A task-specific (OCHRA) feedback is more effective in improving surgical skills in terms of time and path length in novices compared to a global rating scale (OSATS). The effects of a task-specific feedback are present mostly in individuals with lower visual-spatial abilities.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	81-87
Number of pages	7
Journal	Surgery (United States)
Volume	170
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2020.12.038
Publication status	Published - 12 Feb 2021

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
The authors sincerely thank Michel Dieben for his technical support in the use of the motion tracking device and interpretation of the data and Jan van Schaik for his support in recruitment of participants.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Authors

Access to Document

10.1016/j.surg.2020.12.038

PIIS0039606021000039Final published version, 619 KBLicence: CC BY

Cite this

@article{a5b5f7e469364e1d94589e5f41e45dac,

title = "Global versus task-specific postoperative feedback in surgical procedure learning",

abstract = "Background: Task-specific checklists and global rating scales are both recommended assessment tools to provide constructive feedback on surgical performance. This study evaluated the most effective feedback tool by comparing the effects of the Observational Clinical Human Reliability Analysis (OCHRA) and the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) on surgical performance in relation to the visual-spatial ability of the learners. Methods: In a randomized controlled trial, medical students were allocated to either the OCHRA (n = 25) or OSATS (n = 25) feedback group. Visual-spatial ability was measured by a Mental Rotation Test. Participants performed an open inguinal hernia repair procedure on a simulation model twice. Feedback was provided after the first procedure. Improvement in performance was evaluated blindly using a global rating scale (performance score) and hand-motion analysis (time and path length). Results: Mean improvement in performance score was not significantly different between the OCHRA and OSATS feedback groups (P = .100). However, mean improvement in time (371.0 ± 223.4 vs 274.6 ± 341.6; P = .027) and path length (53.5 ± 42.4 vs 34.7 ± 39.0; P = .046) was significantly greater in the OCHRA feedback group. When stratified by mental rotation test scores, the greater improvement in time (P = .032) and path length (P = .053) was observed only among individuals with low visual-spatial abilities. Conclusion: A task-specific (OCHRA) feedback is more effective in improving surgical skills in terms of time and path length in novices compared to a global rating scale (OSATS). The effects of a task-specific feedback are present mostly in individuals with lower visual-spatial abilities.",

author = "Tahmina Nazari and Katerina Bogomolova and Marlike Ridderbos and Dankbaar, {Mary E.W.} and {van Merri{\"e}nboer}, {Jeroen J.G.} and Lange, {Johan F.} and Theo Wiggers and {van der Hage}, {Jos A.}",

note = "Funding Information: The authors sincerely thank Michel Dieben for his technical support in the use of the motion tracking device and interpretation of the data and Jan van Schaik for his support in recruitment of participants. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2021 The Authors",

year = "2021",

month = feb,

day = "12",

doi = "10.1016/j.surg.2020.12.038",

language = "English",

volume = "170",

pages = "81--87",

journal = "Surgery (United States)",

issn = "0039-6060",

publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Global versus task-specific postoperative feedback in surgical procedure learning

AU - Nazari, Tahmina

AU - Bogomolova, Katerina

AU - Ridderbos, Marlike

AU - Dankbaar, Mary E.W.

AU - van Merriënboer, Jeroen J.G.

AU - Lange, Johan F.

AU - Wiggers, Theo

AU - van der Hage, Jos A.

N1 - Funding Information: The authors sincerely thank Michel Dieben for his technical support in the use of the motion tracking device and interpretation of the data and Jan van Schaik for his support in recruitment of participants. Publisher Copyright: © 2021 The Authors

PY - 2021/2/12

Y1 - 2021/2/12

N2 - Background: Task-specific checklists and global rating scales are both recommended assessment tools to provide constructive feedback on surgical performance. This study evaluated the most effective feedback tool by comparing the effects of the Observational Clinical Human Reliability Analysis (OCHRA) and the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) on surgical performance in relation to the visual-spatial ability of the learners. Methods: In a randomized controlled trial, medical students were allocated to either the OCHRA (n = 25) or OSATS (n = 25) feedback group. Visual-spatial ability was measured by a Mental Rotation Test. Participants performed an open inguinal hernia repair procedure on a simulation model twice. Feedback was provided after the first procedure. Improvement in performance was evaluated blindly using a global rating scale (performance score) and hand-motion analysis (time and path length). Results: Mean improvement in performance score was not significantly different between the OCHRA and OSATS feedback groups (P = .100). However, mean improvement in time (371.0 ± 223.4 vs 274.6 ± 341.6; P = .027) and path length (53.5 ± 42.4 vs 34.7 ± 39.0; P = .046) was significantly greater in the OCHRA feedback group. When stratified by mental rotation test scores, the greater improvement in time (P = .032) and path length (P = .053) was observed only among individuals with low visual-spatial abilities. Conclusion: A task-specific (OCHRA) feedback is more effective in improving surgical skills in terms of time and path length in novices compared to a global rating scale (OSATS). The effects of a task-specific feedback are present mostly in individuals with lower visual-spatial abilities.

AB - Background: Task-specific checklists and global rating scales are both recommended assessment tools to provide constructive feedback on surgical performance. This study evaluated the most effective feedback tool by comparing the effects of the Observational Clinical Human Reliability Analysis (OCHRA) and the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) on surgical performance in relation to the visual-spatial ability of the learners. Methods: In a randomized controlled trial, medical students were allocated to either the OCHRA (n = 25) or OSATS (n = 25) feedback group. Visual-spatial ability was measured by a Mental Rotation Test. Participants performed an open inguinal hernia repair procedure on a simulation model twice. Feedback was provided after the first procedure. Improvement in performance was evaluated blindly using a global rating scale (performance score) and hand-motion analysis (time and path length). Results: Mean improvement in performance score was not significantly different between the OCHRA and OSATS feedback groups (P = .100). However, mean improvement in time (371.0 ± 223.4 vs 274.6 ± 341.6; P = .027) and path length (53.5 ± 42.4 vs 34.7 ± 39.0; P = .046) was significantly greater in the OCHRA feedback group. When stratified by mental rotation test scores, the greater improvement in time (P = .032) and path length (P = .053) was observed only among individuals with low visual-spatial abilities. Conclusion: A task-specific (OCHRA) feedback is more effective in improving surgical skills in terms of time and path length in novices compared to a global rating scale (OSATS). The effects of a task-specific feedback are present mostly in individuals with lower visual-spatial abilities.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85101048032&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.surg.2020.12.038

DO - 10.1016/j.surg.2020.12.038

M3 - Article

C2 - 33589246

AN - SCOPUS:85101048032

SN - 0039-6060

VL - 170

SP - 81

EP - 87

JO - Surgery (United States)

JF - Surgery (United States)

IS - 1

ER -

Global versus task-specific postoperative feedback in surgical procedure learning

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this