Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30327396›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2018

Proficiency-based progression training: an 'end to end' model for decreasing error applied to achievement of effective epidural analgesia during labour: a randomised control study.

Karthikeyan Kallidaikurichi Srinivasan, Anthony Gallagher, Niall O'Brien, Vinod Sudir, Nick Barrett, Raymund O'Connor, Francesca Holt, Peter Lee, Brian O'Donnell, George Shorten

5 registry-linked trialsAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 5 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02179879 completednot on this map

Protocol for Development and Validation of Metrics for Conventional Lumbar Epidural Catheter Placement for Labor Analgesia in Obstetric Patients

TypeobservationalSponsorCork University HospitalRan2013 to 2014Enrolled20ConditionsLabor PainArmsVideo validation
NCT02185079 nacompletednot on this map

The Effect of Metrics Based Performance Based Progression in Provision of Labor Epidural Analgesia on Clinical Performance and Clinical Outcome

TypeinterventionalSponsorCork University HospitalRan2014 to 2017Enrolled16ConditionsLabor PainArmsTraining to proficiency, Conventional training
NCT04786834 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Proficiency Based Progression Training Versus the Halsted's Model for a Robotic Vesico-urethral Anastomosis on an Avian Tissue Model: a Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter and Blinded Clinical Trial: the PROVESA Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorStefano PuliattiRan2020 to 2020Enrolled36ConditionsEducational ProblemsArmsVesico urethral anastomosis on chicken model
NCT05390125 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Safety Huddle Performance: The Effectiveness of an Interdisciplinary, Proficiency-based, Team Simulation Programme to Improve Communication and Reduce Patient Harm (PROTECT)

TypeobservationalSponsorDorothy BreenRan2020 to 2022Enrolled60ConditionsAdverse EventsArmsA team, proficiency based progression, simulation training programme
NCT06147128 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Proficiency Based Progression Training Versus Traditional Training During a Robotic Emergency Conversion Due to a Vessel Injury in a Simulated Setting: a Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter Clinical Trial: The T-REC Trial

TypeobservationalSponsorOrsi AcademyRan2023 to 2024Enrolled48ConditionsEducational ProblemsArmsEmergency scenario in a simulated setting where open conversion is necessary due to vessel injury during robotic surgery on a dry lab model
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. European expert consensus on a structured approach to training robotic-assisted low anterior resection using performance metrics.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2020
    Article
  15. Personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic (Letter #1).Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2020
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Critical Appraisal of Anesthesiology Educational Research for 2018.The journal of education in perioperative medicine : JEPM
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Karthikeyan Kallidaikurichi SrinivasanDepartment of Anaesthesia, Adelaide and Meath Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0003-2833-1920
Anthony GallagherThe ASSERT Centre, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Niall O'BrienThe Department of Anaesthesia, Cork Univesity Hospital, Cork, Ireland.
Vinod SudirDepartment of Anaesthesia, SAOLTA University Healthcare Group, Galway, Ireland.
Nick BarrettDepartment of Anaesthesia, Waterford University Hospital, Waterford, Ireland.
Raymund O'ConnorThe Department of Anaesthesia, Cork Univesity Hospital, Cork, Ireland.
Francesca HoltThe Department of Anaesthesia, Cork Univesity Hospital, Cork, Ireland.
Peter LeeThe ASSERT Centre, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Brian O'DonnellThe ASSERT Centre, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
George ShortenThe ASSERT Centre, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTraining procedural skills using proficiency-based progression (PBP) methodology has consistently resulted in error reduction. We hypothesised that implementation of metric-based PBP training and a valid assessment tool would decrease the failure rate of epidural analgesia during labour when compared to standard simulation-based training.

methodsDetailed, procedure-specific metrics for labour epidural catheter placement were developed based on carefully elicited expert input. Proficiency was defined using criteria derived from clinical performance of experienced practitioners. A PBP curriculum was developed to train medical personnel on these specific metrics and to eliminate errors in a simulation environment.Seventeen novice anaesthetic trainees were randomly allocated to undergo PBP training (Group P) or simulation only training (Group S). Following training, data from the first 10 labour epidurals performed by each participant were recorded. The primary outcome measure was epidural failure rate.

resultsA total of 74 metrics were developed and validated. The inter-rater reliability (IRR) of the derived assessment tool was 0.88. Of 17 trainees recruited, eight were randomly allocated to group S and six to group P (three trainees did not complete the study). Data from 140 clinical procedures were collected. The incidence of epidural failure was reduced by 54% with PBP training (28.7% in Group S vs 13.3% in Group P, absolute risk reduction 15.4% with 95% CI 2% to 28.8%, p=0.04).

conclusionProcedure-specific metrics developed for labour epidural catheter placement discriminated the performance of experts and novices with an IRR of 0.88. Proficiency-based progression training resulted in a lower incidence of epidural failure compared to simulation only training. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02179879. NCT02185079; Post-results.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceAdultAnalgesia, EpiduralAnalgesia, ObstetricalAnesthesiologyCurriculumFemaleHumansLabor, ObstetricMalePregnancyReproducibility of ResultsSimulation TrainingYoung Adultanaesthesiamedical education and trainingsimulation

Identifiers

PMID30327396
PMCPMC6194403

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.