Toggle Main Menu Toggle Search

Open Access padlockePrints

Evaluating the Construct Validity of a Pulsatile Fresh Frozen Human Cadaver Circulation Model for Endovascular Training

Lookup NU author(s): Dr Craig Nesbitt, Dr Sam Tingle, Dr Roger Searle, Sebastian Mafeld, Professor Gerard Stansby

Downloads

Full text for this publication is not currently held within this repository. Alternative links are provided below where available.


Abstract

© 2018 Elsevier Inc. Background: We recently described a pulsatile fresh frozen human cadaver model (PHCM) for training endovascular practitioners. This present study aims to assess the construct validity of PHCM; its ability to differentiate between participants of varying expertise. Methods: Twenty-three participants with varying endovascular experience (12 novice, 4 intermediate, and 7 expert) were recruited. Each attempted catheterization of the left renal artery on PHCM within 10 min under exam conditions. Performances were video recorded and scored using a validated scoring tool by 2 independent endovascular experts, blinded to performer status. Each participant was given a task-specific checklist score (TSC), global rating score (GRS), and overall procedure score (OPS). Finally, examiners were asked whether they would be happy to supervise the participant in theater, with each participant graded as “fail”, “borderline,” or “pass”. Results: All expert and intermediate participants completed the index procedure within the allotted 10 min; however, only one of the 12 novice participants achieved this (P < 0.0005). Endovascular novices had significantly lower TSC, GRS, and OPS than both intermediate participants and endovascular experts. There were no significant differences in TSC, GRS, or OPS between intermediate participants and endovascular experts. When participants were graded as “fail”, “borderline,” or “pass,” there were significant differences between groups (P = 0.001). All of the intermediate and expert participants received a pass. Out of the 12 novice participants, 2 received a pass, 6 received a borderline, and 4 were failed. Conclusions: The PHCM demonstrates construct validity. Further work is required to determine its educational impact in endovascular training.


Publication metadata

Author(s): Nesbitt C, Tingle SJ, Williams R, McCaslin J, Searle R, Mafeld S, Stansby G

Publication type: Article

Publication status: Published

Journal: Annals of Vascular Surgery

Year: 2018

Volume: 52

Pages: 237-243

Print publication date: 01/10/2018

Online publication date: 19/05/2018

Acceptance date: 02/03/2018

ISSN (print): 0890-5096

ISSN (electronic): 1615-5947

Publisher: Elsevier Inc.

URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avsg.2018.03.041

DOI: 10.1016/j.avsg.2018.03.041


Altmetrics

Altmetrics provided by Altmetric


Actions

Find at Newcastle University icon    Link to this publication


Share