ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2021
See One, Do One, Forget One: Early Skill Decay After Paracentesis Training.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Does an instructional video as a stand-alone tool promote the acquisition of practical clinical skills? A randomised simulation research trial of skills acquisition and short-term retention.BMC medical education · 2024Trial
- Article
- The Impact of a Paracentesis Clinic on Internal Medicine Resident Procedural Competency.Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS · 2024Article
- Cohort study of hospitalists' procedural skills: baseline competence and durability after simulation-based training.BMJ open · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionInternal medicine residents perform paracentesis, but programs lack standard methods for assessing competence or maintenance of competence and instead rely on number of procedures completed. This study describes differences in resident competence in paracentesis over time.
methodsFrom 2016 to 2017, internal medicine residents (n = 118) underwent paracentesis simulation training. Competence was assessed using the Paracentesis Competency Assessment Tool (PCAT), which combines a checklist, global scale, and entrustment score. The PCAT also delineates two categorical cut-point scores: the Minimum Passing Standard (MPS) and the Unsupervised Practice Standard (UPS). Residents were randomized to return to the simulation lab at 3 and 6 months (group A, n = 60) or only 6 months (group B, n = 58). At each session, faculty raters assessed resident performance. Data were analyzed to compare resident performance at each session compared with initial training scores, and performance between groups at 6 months.
resultsAfter initial training, all residents met the MPS. The number achieving UPS did not differ between groups: group A = 24 (40%), group B = 20 (34.5%), p = 0.67. When group A was retested at 3 months, performance on each PCAT component significantly declined, as did the proportion of residents meeting the MPS and UPS. At the 6-month test, residents in group A performed significantly better than residents in group B, with 52 (89.7%) and 20 (34.5%) achieving the MPS and UPS, respectively, in group A compared with 25 (46.3%) and 2 (3.70%) in group B (p < .001 for both comparison). DISCUSSION: Skill in paracentesis declines as early as 3 months after training. However, retraining may help interrupt skill decay. Only a small proportion of residents met the UPS 6 months after training. This suggests using the PCAT to objectively measure competence would reclassify residents from being permitted to perform paracentesis independently to needing further supervision.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.